Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Displays

Double Your Fun with DoubleSight 344

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the two-for-the-price-of-three dept.
Lothar writes "If you are looking for another reason to throw out that old CRT and upgrade to LCDs here it is. The DoubleSight DS-1900 packs two 19" LCD panels in a neat package and will take up less total space than that cathode ray tube whic has created the permanent bow in your desk. You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially, but you won't have to sacrifice too much space due to the reasonable size of the display's footprint. Just another reason to go LCD..."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Double Your Fun with DoubleSight

Comments Filter:
  • LCD's (Score:5, Insightful)

    by the_Bionic_lemming (446569) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:35PM (#12729628)
    Have they eliminated "Blurring" - We have cheap LCD's at work that suck as you scroll up a web page and it "blurs".

    What aboud the dead pixel policy?
    • Re:LCD's (Score:4, Informative)

      by modecx (130548) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:53PM (#12729737)
      Indeed, they've got LCDs around that claim ~10ms response time. I have a 19" touting 16ms response time, and I'm proud to say that it plays movies well, plays fast paced games well--Enemy Territory, HL2 both look beautiful, even with lots of fast movement.

      Of course, there's people that will poo-poo LCDs until they render every itty-bitty thing perfectly at 100hz... As if their "super high quality" CRTs have phosphors that react fast enough to make a difference, and their eyes are from the planet Krypton....

      Truthfully, I don't notice that much of a difference between this and my old CRT, except text is sharper, and I swear that colors in the magenta range seem more vibrant. The price was more than reasonable too--$360. You can find the 12 ms screens for around that now, but I needed mine in a hurry and couldn't find a place that carried them locally.
      • For about the first two or three days after I got an LCD monitor at work I actually was getting headaches and felt nautious. I have no idea why, but after a few days it all disappeared. Mind you, I still prefer my CRT, though I really couldn't put my finger on why.
    • Re:LCD's (Score:3, Funny)

      by McGiraf (196030)
      yeah nice... but to get double sight it's cheaper to buy beer.
    • Ghosting has been significantly reduced in the past year. OverDrive panels [tomshardware.com] Viewsonic VX924 [tomshardware.com] (faster response, more noise)
    • Re:LCD's (Score:3, Interesting)

      by drsquare (530038)
      The DoubleSight DS-1900 packs two 19" LCD panels in a neat package and will take up less total space than that cathode ray tube whic has created the permanent bow in your desk.

      The bit that gets me is, it takes up more space, not less. My desk space is limited by width rather than depth. Moving from a CRT to an LCD doesn't give me extra room at the sides, it gives me more room behind or in front of the monitor. Unless these LCDs are going to be in front of each other, it's not taking up existing CRT space.
      • Re:LCD's (Score:5, Informative)

        by jbarket (530468) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @01:49PM (#12730031)
        The real problem with these monitors is that for $1,000, you could pick up a couple of nicer 19" LCDs yourself.

        As far as your space problem, my personal recommendation (having a similarly small desk) is to wall mount your LCDs.

        I picked up a mount for about $40 not too long ago, and I can extent the monitor out from the wall, tilt and pivot it, et cetera. Combined with a wireless mouse and an easily stored keyboard, I can regain use of my entire desk fairly quickly.

        Can't recommend it highly enough.
        • Re:LCD's (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Total_Wimp (564548) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @05:55PM (#12731157)
          The pivoting part is important, at least to me. I run dual LCDs at work and each of them is on a pivoting base. We have a highly colaborative environment and it's very common for me to want/need to show something on my screen to a coworker. I can actually swivel one of the displays and then hit a hot key so that both the coworker and me are looking at the exact same material, but then reverse the process and have the ability to use both screens as one giant display. If I had a single base that contained both screens, this wouldn't be possible.

          Another technology that makes this expecially usefull is USB mice and keyboards. I actually have an extra set on my desk in just the right position so my coworker can do input when they're looking at my swiveled display. Ever have someone try to reach accross you so they can use your mouse to show you something? Ever switch chairs so someone else could "drive" and then realize you have stuff you need to show them too? Dual displays keyboards and mice are amoung the best investments I've ever made to enchance teamwork in our workplace.

          TW
    • Re:LCD's (Score:4, Informative)

      by NeoThermic (732100) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @01:51PM (#12730040) Homepage Journal
      Dead pixels will relate to the ISO rating class that the pannel has combined with its native resolution.

      ISO 13406-2 (Class II) states that you can roughtly have 2 dead pixels per million pixels. So for a native resolution of 2560*1024, you will get nothing more than 4 dead pixels.

      You can get better, of course, if the pannels are rated to Class I, they must be perfect, i.e. no dead pixels.

      NeoThermic
    • Why don't you actually try it out instead of complaining about it?

      My HP laptop(P2 400mhz 128mb ram just to age it for you) at work blurs when viewing images, and browsing pages. My Apple Powerbook, and NEC 18" (both brand new)displays work beautifully, for playing quake, HL2, etc.

      So why don't you try it out. Technology is always changing, and improving. Last year's model might of sucked, but this year's might be great.

    • Re:LCD's (Score:3, Informative)

      by molnarcs (675885)
      Short answer: yes, absolutely!

      Long answer:
      There are 3 lcd panel technologies: TN, *VA (MVA, PVA) and IPS. TN panels have achieved a very fast response time last year. My viewsonic vx912 has a response time of ~12ms, which is fine not only for movies, but for fast paced fps as well. The downside of TN panels is the smaller viewable angles, especially the vertical ones, and 6 bit panels (that achieve 16.2 million colors with a 'trick'). Contrast ratio is average.

      *VA panels had an average of 25ms - that

  • CRT can do this too (Score:2, Interesting)

    by camcorder (759720)
    Why this is a reason to switch LCD? You can do same with CRT as well. You'll also have better colors if you pay same amount of money.

    But I can't argue that real desktop real estate will be better with CRT.
    • Yeah, I cant think this is a reason to switch when I've had it on my Bloomberg terminal for 4 years, and it wasn't new then...
    • Why this is a reason to switch LCD?

      Indeed. I'm all for multiheaded setups. But until the quality of LCDs improves substantially, I'll be sticking with CRT. Yeah, so it requires more desk real estate. But I care more about my eyes[1] than I do about saving space. I'ts much cheaper, too.

      [1] Many people claim that LCDs are better for your eyes than CRTs. All I can say is that my experience is the opposite. LCDs cause my eyes to strain, and give me a headache with prolonged use. And they're too low resolut

      • And how many years ago were you using LCD's?

        Today's cheap LCD's don't suffer from most of those problems. Dead pixels is another story, but even then if a certain number are bad the manufacturer exchanges it for you.

        Of course if you consider 1280x1024 at 18" dia. to be low resolution then you need your eyes checked anyway.
      • Perhaps you are comparing high-end CRTs to the LCDs that could be bought a few years ago? If you can get "high resolution" CRTs without eyestrain... I must assume you're talking about at least 1600x1200 at 85Hz or more. That's a damned expensive CRT, and until recently you had to pay about that much (if not more) to get an entry-level LCD doing 1024x768.

        Modern LCDs have improved significantly... The worst LCDs of today outstrip most LCDs of a couple years ago. A good LCD that does 1600x1200 and doesn't

      • by Lord of Ironhand (456015) <arjen@xyx.nl> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @03:29PM (#12730522) Homepage
        One reason I'm sticking to CRT's is that the affordable LCD's I've seen suffer from the problem that the colours are only right as long as I'm exactly in front of the monitor. If I move my head to the right too far, I notice the left edge of the screen slowly changing colours. Not even that bad in itself since I don't usually have much reason to move to the sides so far, but I've noticed that when I'm doing graphical work on an LCD, I get paranoid about "odd" colours and have to move my head around a bit to make sure it's not caused by the LCD.

        Another problem I have is that most affordable LCD's have a 1280x1024 (aspect 5:4) resolution. In a world where widescreen TV is promoted as being more "natural" for the human brain (something I actually tend to agree with), why go from 4:3 to a narrower 5:4 resolution?

        For now, I'm staying with CRT's, and I'm re-evaluating once 1600x1200 LCD's with a wide viewable angle are affordable.

  • No, it isn't. (Score:5, Informative)

    by sglider (648795) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:36PM (#12729635) Homepage Journal
    Just another reason to go LCD...
    I'm afraid not. LCDs are very expensive, and with the current level of technology (dead pixels, et. al.), the cost doesn't justify the product. So what if the Resolution is higher? How many people use a dual display? The average joe -- or even average geek -- could build 2 systems for the cost of this one monitor.

    Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.
    • Re:No, it isn't. (Score:5, Informative)

      by Klar (522420) <curchin@g m a il.com> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:41PM (#12729663) Homepage Journal
      Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.
      Having a second monitor isn't all that expensive -- what like $150 for a 17" crt? Also, many people I know who program, including myself, find having two monitors much more productive. There is so much more desktop real estate. eg, if you are working in java, you can have the api open on a monitor as you are working on code. Or, have some code on one monitor, and test it on the other. etc etc. All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.
      • All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.

        Same thing can be said about a woman with no teeth.

      • This is one of the arguments for OSX not having a maximize button but rather a zoom button instead. Nothing ever fills the screen so you can always see the windows open behind what you're doing. Couple this with a widescreen and you've got a setup with room your reference to one side and an editor to the other.

        All the people I know who have had a Mac have never gone back.
      • Two monitors are a godsend for any kind of GUI development. Debugger goes on one, the app in the other. It's no fun trying to debug a GUI when every time you switch to the debugger you get more draw events.
        • by cgenman (325138) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @02:17PM (#12730167) Homepage
          It's great for pretty much any office work.

          I can't tell the number of times I've had a spec open in one monitor, and whatever it was I was working on open in the other. Glancing back and forth between screens is a lot faster than grabbing the mouse, clicking on the taskbar icon, absorbing as much as possible, clicking back, and repositioning your cursor.

          In my particular field, this lets you have the game you're working on open in one monitor, and an editor open in the other, so that you can change values / setups on the fly and see how that effects gameplay. Sure, I could click over, but this is much, much faster. For Midi work I've had the current detail window open in one monitor, and a broad overview of where you are in the song and detail on the vocals you are trying to sync to in the other. For web work, it's great to have Dreamweaver open in one monitor and either a spec or the actual rendered HTML in the other, set to a 1 second refresh. Or a Word Doc open in one monitor, and an Excel Spreadsheet open in the other. Anywhere you have to compare data, a dual-setup is much, much nicer. I'd even like to get a 3rd monitor as basically a dedicated chat/e-mail window, as most of the communication at my company happens over that medium.

          Old CRT's are so plentiful these days that it doesn't make sense not to. I've found 4 free monitors in the past 2 weeks without even looking. If something is going to speed up your workflow, there is no reason not to do it.

          If you've never used a dual-monitor setup, I can see how it would look frivilous. But nearly everyone who uses it loves it, and finds it helps them in their daily tasks. And with monitors basically free and all video cards shipping with two outputs anyway, it doesn't cost a thing to try it out.

          • by fm6 (162816)

            I can't tell the number of times I've had a spec open in one monitor, and whatever it was I was working on open in the other. Glancing back and forth between screens is a lot faster than grabbing the mouse, clicking on the taskbar icon, absorbing as much as possible, clicking back, and repositioning your cursor.

            Faster, and less error prone.

            For years, people have been talking about paperless offices, but that can't happen until computer displays are as convenient and as pervasive as paper already is.

      • I'll second that. If I keep myself to 78 characters per line in my code, I can split my buffer in gvim 4 times at 2560x1024 and have four files up at the same time. Having an API reference up or a terminal up for compilation is also very very handy. (I don't like compiling via vim itself because I need to keep the error messages visible while I'm working through the code fixing whatever error gave the compiler a fit)

        Once you realize exactly how much information you can keep visible and how long it takes t
        • totem uses xine-lib as does xine-ui. due to the separation of xine-lib and xine-ui, you can use xine with many different frontends. i use amarok's xine audio engine, xine-ui for vids although occasionally totem if for some strange reason i find myself browsing for video's in konqueror instead of konsole (never bothered to change the avi association to xine)
          • I'm aware of that, but it doesn't change that totem will properly fill one monitor when fullscreened, while gxine will try to span both montiors in aspect ratio, but only fils the first monitor (such that I only see half of the image).
      • You're right on that front.

        Of course, the poster may have been referring to the particular setup described in the article... which is expensive, and LCD, so any videophile will go "ick".

        Personally, 2 widescreen LCD's sounds like heaven to me. The only thing that gets me down to 1 monitor these days is my notebook, and I considered buying a dual screen notebook.
      • Depending on what you're using it for, even a Free-$30 garage-sale 15 or 17" CRT can be a great improvement for dual-head. If it's just going to have palettes(sp?) or web docs up, it's not even worth buying new or high-quality.

        Granted, some people might have aesthetic sensibilities which are offended by the look of a rotting-yellow colored beige-box monitor on the desk, but I've never been one to get hung up on look when the usefulness/price factor is so good.
    • Actually, yes, LCDs are very expensive, but there lies the problem. Most people aren't willing to pay for this expensive technology and end up with something subpar. My LCD is three years old, but never blurs, has a super-quick refresh (it's amazing for gaming), and not a single dead pixel in sight. And why's that? It's because it cost $800, that's why. Good LCDs are not cheap. (Oh, and Dell makes great LCDs. Surprising eh?) However, I must agree with you, why buy a fancy dual setup when it's cheaper just
      • That's a bunch of bullshit. Any LCD ever made has ghosting if you're not blind. Even my 1-week old Viewsonic VP191b 19" with 8ms gray-to-gray has some ghosting. Check Tom's Hardware for LCD response graphs.
    • Normally, dual head isn't very expensive. And it is useful for heavy multitasking.

      Most video cards now seem to support it, $100 will get an excellent dual head ATI or nVidia card new, you can buy Matrox G400s/G450s used for $20 or less now.

      I had as much as triple head several years ago when I put multiple $10 Matrox Millennium I PCI cards in the same computer and put together a bunch of cast-off CRTs.

      I wouild do dual head CRT right now, but my desk doesn't have space for two of the cast-off 21" screens,
    • Re:No, it isn't. (Score:5, Informative)

      by steeef (98372) <steeef@@@gmail...com> on Sunday June 05, 2005 @01:06PM (#12729806)
      I recently replaced my old 19" CRT monitor with a Samsung 19" CRT, but not before I looked at comparable LCDs.

      I knew I wanted at least a 19" that was capable of displaying 1600x1200. I scoured NewEgg, but all I got were 19" LCDs with a native resolution of 1280x1024. I could put up with a lower resolution, but the fact that they all run at a non-4:3 resolution kills the deal for me. It just looks wrong.

      In order to get 1600x1200, I would have had to buy at least a 20". And judging from the current prices at NewEgg, that's at least $600. So I went with the Samsung 997DF-T/T [newegg.com] CRT monitor for $210. That's nearly a third of the cost for a flatscreen CRT with great colors and dotpitch.

      LCDs are great, and had I $600+ to spend, I would have jumped at the chance. But for now, the cost difference is enough to make me stick with CRTs for now.
      • Re:No, it isn't. (Score:2, Informative)

        by Tetrad69 (526053)
        but the fact that they all run at a non-4:3 resolution kills the deal for me. It just looks wrong.

        The reason they run at 5:4 resolution is because, get this, the monitor itself is 5:4.
    • Re:No, it isn't. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bahamat (187909)

      Unless you are into digital editing, or watching TV on your PC, this dual monitor bit is nothing more than a rich man's folly.

      I beg to differ. I'm a systems administrator and I've been using dual 19" LCD's on my Linux workstation for months. I regularly load my screens with more xterms than you can shake a stick at. I have two virtual desktops filled with terms, one with a browser and my e-mail each a full screen and one for various other things (usually Ethereal, Gimp or OpenOffice) and I still find

    • I recently upgraded my desktop at work with two high end LCDs (for testing purposes, of course) and the 21" CRT on the left.

      Results so far:

      21" CRT is not as sharp, but very low eyestrain.
      23" LCD (Sony, 1600$) can't be run at full resolution in digital mode, requires a new card (no problem on the Dell)
      20" LCD (Dell, 400$) works just fine at 1680x1050 from the card.

      Mottle in the LCDs drives me crazy- I keep trying to clean them to get rid of the speckles.

      Grey response is poor, low end flare is high (non-s
    • The only time I have ever used dual screens was when I was dealing with documents. Lots of documents. Having two screens allowed me to keep two 'source' documents open on one monitor and the interface I happened to be transcribing them into (which needed a lot of screen estate) on the other.

      I tried it with one screen and alt+tabbing, I gave up and demanded a 2nd monitor after 20 minutes.
    • Dont knock it 'til you try it. I'm using two 18" LCD's (total cost around $700), no dead pixels on either screen, and the amount of screen real estate is unbelievably useful. I originally tried two displays with two CRT's, one 17" and one 15", using the smaller one for email, Windows Explorer, etc. and the larger one for applications. Now that I'm using the LCD's, they take up less space, they don't get as hot, and the picture is a lot more crisp and easy on the eyes.

      I still use the Dualview setting by
  • mirror (Score:4, Funny)

    by MankyD (567984) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:37PM (#12729639) Homepage
    Mirror mirror on the web
    please copy this website
    so that this slashdotting might ebb.

    (anyone?)
  • I threw out the LCD and got two old CRTs!
  • by DaRat (678130) * on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:39PM (#12729651)
    Geez, just get two identical LCD monitors. You can get two good 19" Samsung LCDs for $500 each. Then put the two next to each other with one just slightly behind the other (to minimize the bezel). Then, you have the same setup for less with the advantage that you can split up the monitors down the road if you want. This is the setup that I have, and it works just fine.
    • Personally, I'd rather get a single, widescreen display. I caught Dell's 2005FPW on sale for $400 a couple of weeks ago, and it's been outstanding, moving up from a dying 17" CRT @ 1600x1200.

      I'd used widescreen displays previously on notebooks, but it was nice to finally get that kind of screen ratio on my desktop. The biggest thing about widescreen is breaking users of the habit many have of maximizing and subsequently minimizing *every* window they use and instead simply sizing the window down and leavin
    • Yeah, seems pretty straight forward. My rig laptop powered these days. I use the laptop's 1900x1200 with my 19" CRT's 1600x1200 to pull off a nice and easy 3500x1200 display. I can usually put all I need for coding on the laptop display and run the application in a test environment on the CRT. With the tiny resolution, I have to be close to the monitor to read without eye strain, so using the two monitors does involve turning my head. Not good for using reference code, but fine for code then test.
  • Subscriber-free! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Ochu (877326) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:39PM (#12729656) Homepage
    Shouldn't be getting that many subscribers posting to this one; after all, they pay not to receive ads.
  • Isn't two LCDs exactly the wrong number to combine, since it puts the seam dead centre (or at least, that's how the image on their site looks to me)? I can see arguments for one large LCD, or possibly for a main central display flanked by secondary displays on either side, but two equivalent displays just seems awkward.

    • I have a dual monitor set up that is, you might say, like a three-monitor setup missing the left-hand monitor. Perhaps the two monitors on one stand idea makes the seam look like it should be central, but you can always offset and turn the thing a bit so that whichever side suits your fancy is the "primary" display--that is, directly in front of you.
    • With two you can put your documentation on one screen and your code on the next.
    • I don't know about you, but I happen to have 2 eyes. And I find that having two monitors works out quite nicely. There's a Left Monitor, and a Right Monitor. Simple! Having a center monitor kind of confuses things. Kind of like having a third eye. I suppose having a third eye works for some people, but most of us do just fine with Left/Right.

      That being said, the difference between having dual 19" monitors and dual 20" monitors is amazing.

      2560x1024 = 2.6 Megapixels
      3200x1200 = 3.8 Megapixels


      2.
    • I disagree. The last place I worked went though some significant downsizing, such that I was able to scrounge 3 20" CRTs and suitable display cards. (a dual-head Matrox plus some ATI thing.)

      Three monitors was absurd, and I ended up using two of them most of the time, and just had logs scrolling by on the third. (sometimes handy, but not worth the effort)

      I'm now sitting in front of a pair of 17" 1280x1024 LCDs, and am very happy with the setup. I'm writing this on one screen while pondering the PHP code I'
    • I have an 20" Apple Cinema display, and a 15" CRT that i scrounged to the right of it. Main ones for browsing, gaming, etc (and tv, since my tv will only display on my primary monitor) and the second monitor i keep my IM windows, winamp, or if im watching videos or a movie while doing other stuff. Pic1 [pimprig.com], Pic2 [pimprig.com] (mine on the right, roomies on the left, he runs a 17" and a 15" CRT) Then i can just move my browser to the second monitor if the TV is maximized for whatever reason. I do however plan to replace the p
  • Why would I pay over $1000 for this rig when I can pick up 2 Dell 1905s for $250 a piece?
    • by gkuz (706134)
      Where are you getting Dell 1905's for $250/ea? Al's Midnight Discount?
    • I got a Dell P1130 for cheaper than that. The best thing about LCDs is that they're driving down the prices of CRTs. Woo!
  • Give it to me :)
  • You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially

    Exactly how many pixels does it take to increase productivity substantially? How much more productivity do you get with each additional pixel? Just wonderin'...

  • More pixels at ever lower cost is nice. My employer foisted an old CRT with blurry lines on me and refused to buy me an LCD monitor. However, since LCD monitors are now incredibly cheap (compared to even 5 years go), I bought my own LCD flatpanel and hooked it into my desktop at work.

    When I purchased my monitor, I ensured that I bought it from only a local (i.e., not Internet fly-by-night operation) store with a return policy. My concern is that a small but not insignificant percentage of monitors suff

  • Not enough! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by scoopr (849708)
    Ah, but if we are going to go this route, I'd rather go for this [go-l.com] offering.

    (Sorry, the site is rather awful, check out the source, eww)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:50PM (#12729721)
    I mean, if this isn't a "slashvertisement," I don't know what is.
    • If this isn't a slashvertisement, you don't know what is?

      I know what is. An story announcing a Dell laptop for x hundred dollars off if you order this month is a slashvertisement. Especially since discounts aren't news for nerds, and Dell laptops don't usually have new technology which is news for nerds.

      A story announcing new low web hosting rates from a certain company is a slashvertisement. No new technology there, just lower prices which are not news for nerds.

      Do you see the difference? To me, a m
    • No, it's slashdotting the competition. The 2x15" is for sale on thinkgeek.
  • The article's (or at least the summary's; TFA is slashdotted) assertion that using two screens will increase your productivity by a substantial amount is, to be blunt, outright rubbish: if it really did, then we'd all be using dual-screen setups at work, anyway, since the cost for another screen is negligible compared to what an employee costs a company per year otherwise, so even a small increase in productivity would mean that the extra screen would quickly amortise itself.

    Furthermore, I can also draw up
    • Of course you could also have a full-screen browser showing slashdot on your other screen. The increase of productivity would be negative, but probably substantial.
    • I have two screens at home (LCD 20") and one at work (LCD 19"). Personally I find it a lot easier to develop with two screens than one. The biggest reason being that I can run my develop program on one screen and other stuff (docs, mail etc) on the second.

      If I'm debugging it's even better as I can have program and logs etc running on one screen and the debugger on the other.

      Many businesses don't buy added screens despite the added productivity because the people signing the purchase orders are not the sam
  • by oneiros27 (46144) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:53PM (#12729736) Homepage
    C|Net list the price as being US$1070 - 1337, with the basic price near US$1160.

    When you consider that you're going to need to get a second video card, if you don't already have on lying about, just buying a 23" LCD (about 1920x1200) seems like a much better solution.

    I'm guessing that someone has probably come up with a VESA compliant mount for two screens, or if they haven't, you could probably make your own from an existing base, a bit of sheet steel, a drill, and a few screws ... and then you'd be able to just recycle existing monitors.

    Of course, the real issue the is stability of the base ... how high is the center of gravity, and what is the span of the base, so that we can compute the eccentricity required to tip it?. (it'd be more stable to just place two screens next to each other, and if you want them to stay in place, try a little bit of VHB [3m.com] or duct tape.)

    I would think that the advantages to the small footprint would be those that couldn't fit two monitors side by site normally -- which would mean it'd be extending over the edge of the desk, and has that much further to fall when someone bumps it. (unless you VHB it down to the desk, of course)
  • by Greg Hullender (621024) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @12:56PM (#12729754) Homepage Journal
    When you've worked with dual monitors for a while, you'll never want to go back. It's surprising how often you really want at least one full-screen document while still being able to look at others.

    For example:

    1) Writing code with your editor on one screen and a spreadsheet or word processor document on the other.

    2)Preparing a report on one while surfing the web for references on the other.

    3) Reading e-mail with your list of messages on one screen and the current message on the other.

    4) Reading Slashdot on one screen with The Article on the other.

    (Okay, I'll admit scenario #4 is a little farfetched.) :-)

    --Greg

    • But you only have one pair of eyes, or are you able to point them at different monitors simultaneously?

      The way I see dual monitors is that it just saves you alt-tabbing or tiling windows. Multiple desktops (as is common in linux) with the desktop switching achieved by a footswitch would be a simpler arrangement.

      • I agree. I tried two for a while and it never did much for me.

        I now run a 21 inch 1600x1200 LCD in portrait mode, since most docs, pdf, web pages run portrait mode. PDF bigger than real size is sweet, full page as well.

        Now, I would love to have 3x as much real estate one day. 3x1200 wide by 1600 tall. The two monitor deal seemed distracting, like you have to change focus off the main but maybe one on each side would be more useful and balanced...

  • Picture here [brightandsleek.com]

    I find it funny that the sight lists the price of this monitor at $1337.00. Somebody is having fun with it...

    Oh, and on the whole 2 monitors in 1 thing, I think it is kind of silly. You either buy 2 LCD monitors and dual-monitor them for cheaper, or if you really want a 30" LCD screen then by all means, get a REAL one, not one with an inch thick black line going down the middle.
  • Sure, these reduce the desk footprint, but they still take up *space*.. Having something that wide in the space above your desktop may not be an option for everyone. Many of us have book shelves, walls, etc. in the way..

    Besides, LCD's still arent as 'crisp' and 'responsive' as a good monitor.. Both can easily cause eye strain.
  • I've read a PCMag article about that line, and it wasn't that flattering. By the way, NONE of their (expensive) products come with DVI inputs. Blurrrrr.....

    A better idea would be to get two nice monitors with thin bezels [viewsonic.com] and get a dual monitor VESA mount [viewsonic.com].

    • I stand corrected - this particular monitor does have DVI (the company's earlier products did not). Still, there are better, more flexible solutions out there for dual display.
    • The two VP171bs are working out great for me... but the price of the dual monitor VESA mount is just horrendous!
      • The key is for mass production to kick in, and I'm not sure if dual monitor is going to ever have the mass-appeal to catch on and pull down the prices.

        Most people prefer less PC on their desks, not more :(.

  • I did the same thing years ago with duct tape. As comments pointed out earlier, this is pretty lame. Just buy 2 monitors. At least you could pull them apart later on.
  • by MrAngryForNoReason (711935) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @01:22PM (#12729886)

    Digital Tigers [digitaltigers.com] have been making multi LCD monitors like these for years. They offer 2, 3, 4 or 6 screens on a single stand

    The best option to my eyes is the Tigervista Power Trio, one large LCD flanked by two smaller ones mounted portrait. This neatly gets around the problem of having a 'seam' down the middle of your eyeline where the screens join.

    Oh and before the accusations fly I don't work for the company, but I have been lusting after one of their screen setups for a while now.

    Of course you do need an extra graphics card to power the third screen, and the screens are by no means cheap.

  • by thanq (321486) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @01:24PM (#12729898)
    It does not look that exciting: large res image here [doublesight.com].

    It is much cheaper do one yourself with your own LCD's and a stand like these: horizontal [touchscreens.com] or vertical [touchscreens.com].
  • eliminate the ugly bit between the two screens then??? surely they must be able to put the two TFTs in the same housing and get them closer together...
  • Can someone explain to me why desktop LCDs (like 17") typically only do 1280x1024 but laptop LCDs that size (or smaller) and CRTs can often do 1600x1200? I don't think I've ever seen a desktop LCD around 17" or so do 1600x1200. Why is it such a problem?

  • "You will end up with 2560x1024 pixels of screen real estate, enough to increase productivity substantially"

    Ah, so that's what they're calling gaming these days...
  • by Dogtanian (588974) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @02:29PM (#12730226) Homepage
    Anyone else find it weird that the drivers come on a floppy disk? [xyzcomputing.com].

    Is there *anyone* out there with the money to spend on this that does't have a CD/DVD drive? I'm willing to guess that the proportion of (potential) buyers without a floppy drive will far outweigh those without a CD drive.

    Besides which, if a floppy is that important, they could put a "create floppy" option on the CD.
  • 2560*1024? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by LordJezo (596587) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @02:41PM (#12730275)
    How could it be considered that if there is that huge ugly black gap in the middle?

    For that kind of money I'll just get myself an Apple Cinema Display instead. What's a couple more 100 dollars when you are spending that much already?
  • by Alowishus (34824) on Sunday June 05, 2005 @07:50PM (#12731797) Homepage

    Big deal, Viewsonic has offered stands that mount any of their Pro series LCDs (15" to 21") in not only dual horizontal [viewsonic.com] but also dual vertical [viewsonic.com], triple wide [viewsonic.com] and quad (2x2) [viewsonic.com] layouts. You buy the standard LCDs, remove the included bases, and mount them to the special stands. If you ever decide to split them up, you still have the original bases to reattach and use standalone elsewhere.

    I priced out the same 2-wide setup at CDW with 19" ViewSonics and it came out cheaper, for better quality monitors IMHO.

  • Who so wide ? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by terminal.dk (102718) on Monday June 06, 2005 @01:12AM (#12733299) Homepage
    2x 1280x1024 - So why 2560 x 1024 ?

    I would have made it 2048x1280 - 1:1.6 is a more natural aspect ratio.

    The onbly large resolution screen that is made right that I have seen is the Apple 30".

Live within your income, even if you have to borrow to do so. -- Josh Billings

Working...