|
Paul Watson wrote: Reason being that on Windows I tended to maximise every app window which would then take up the whole screen. Multiple monitors is best in that scenario.
I think I'm like the only person in the world that doesn't do this on Windows. I can't stand having every app maximized, and yet everyone thinks I'm crazy.
|
|
|
|
|
hehe, you've had Mac OS experience though AFAIR.
It took me awhile to get out of the maximize habit on Mac OS X. I used to curse Mac OS X but now I feel they got it right.
regards,
Paul Watson
Ireland & South Africa
Fernando A. Gomez F. wrote: At least he achieved immortality for a few years.
|
|
|
|
|
Paul Watson wrote: hehe, you've had Mac OS experience though AFAIR.
Yeah, I suppose once its in your blood, you're branded for life.
|
|
|
|
|
lol yea Ive only just turned 18 but I managed to buy myself a shiny new imac. Yummy I want an even bigger one now haha
"Wank for peace" - Ozzy Osbourne
|
|
|
|
|
CookieMonster wrote: lol yea Ive only just turned 18 but I managed to buy myself a shiny new imac. Yummy I want an even bigger one now haha
Not bad, my first Mac was a hand-me-down PowerBook. This one in fact: Clickety[^]. So, it could be worse.
|
|
|
|
|
My work laptop has a 17" widescreen display that can do 1600x1200, and that plus an external monitor (no matter the size/resolution) just won't cut it.
I therefore RDP into it from my own machine, which is running a pair of 24" 1920x1200 widescreen monitors (same size/resolution is important), and one older 19" portrait-mode LCD on either side (so they're arranged 19-24-24-19). The RDP window stretches across both 24-inchers (RDP can't occupy more than one monitor when running in fullscreen mode), so I find this perfect to run VS covering one of the monitors, and there's enough space horizontally to split the main IDE window so I can see two source files side-by-side without ever scrolling horizontally. The other monitor is used for VS's floating windows, Outlook, Explorer, IE, etc. But I wish RDP supported resolutions higher than 4096 horizontally; that way, I could stretch the window further and have it cover an additional monitor.
One of the smaller monitors is used for the host system--Messenger, a separate IE session, Explorer, etc and other tasks as need be (that need to be kept separate from my dev machine). The fourth monitor is turned off most of the time--I could probably go without it, but I already had it + the video card for it. About the only time I use it is for connecting to a virtual machine.
I've tried a 30" monitor--I never thought I'd say this until I tried it, but I find that too big to see everything without looking up and down. My 24-inchers aren't as "tall" and I don't need to do that. I suppose one could push a monitor of that size further away, but I don't have the desk space for that. Not to mention that I got my pair of 24"s for about half of what one 30" goes for. Same resolution, so I can't justify the extra money for bigger pixels.
|
|
|
|
|
Often I have to use Remote Desktop (Home Office) which just supports one screen. If using different resolutions or having windows, icons on a second screen icon positions will be lost and everything looks confused when you come back to the host pc at work
(but I have installed a utility to restore desktop icon positions)
|
|
|
|
|
Why don't you try realvnc[^]? it's free and it supports multiple monitors...
[I've added the link]
|
|
|
|
|
Beats any other setup I've had, multi-monitor or otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
Now that I could go for!
/ravi
|
|
|
|
|
nice to have
|
|
|
|
|
The main reason I prefer one big monitor is mainly so my neck won't hurt after hours of staring off sideways because the 7th monitor with Notepad being wrapped around the back of one's head.
|
|
|
|
|
I have one 24" main screen in landscape mode and two 19" screens at both sides in portrait mode. My companion prefers two 24" screens, one in portrait, one in landscape mode.
|
|
|
|
|
Great minds think alike, i've got the same setup.
...cmk
The idea that I can be presented with a problem, set out to logically solve it with the tools at hand, and wind up with a program that could not be legally used because someone else followed the same logical steps some years ago and filed for a patent on it is horrifying.
- John Carmack
|
|
|
|
|
Hard to tell. I never had either
|
|
|
|
|
It's great! Maybe 2x24" in some years. But for now, it fits my needs perfectly.
|
|
|
|
|
2 - 17" and 2 - 22".
Works great!
|
|
|
|
|
It's nice to have the turf for testing. I'm running VPC with multiple images (even one Fedora). The HDCP is great for F1 ever other Sunday. Don't have to mess around with wonky capture cards.
Thomas
|
|
|
|
|
I have 2 PC's and 2 x 22" wide LCD displays. I use a utility to remote control one PC. I run my developer tools on one while email, browser etc... runs on the other. Works out great.
|
|
|
|
|
Not saying anything else is a whole lot better, but here's how the suckage breaks down on My OS of Choice:
- Windows can be in one of three states: minimized (hidden), normal (arbitrary size/position), maximized (fill current screen). Switching between these states is much, much faster than resizing in state #2.
- Switching between applications re-orders all top-level windows (roughly in the order they were last given focus)
- Two less-than-full-screen windows on the same screen can quickly be switched between by clicking in an exposed area.
- Switching between two full-screen windows on the same desktop requires the use of the taskbar or Alt+Tab.
- Switching between two windows on separate screens can be accomplished via the taskbar, alt+tab, or by simply flinging the mouse onto the appropriate screen and clicking on an exposed area of the desired window, regardless of whether the windows are full-screen or not.
- There is no mechanism for the window manager to preserve the relative Z-order of multiple top-level windows belonging to a single application. Therefore, when such windows exist on a single screen along with other top-level windows, they easily become "lost" behind the top-level windows of other applications, and require the same tedious mechanisms described above to bring into focus.
- The default window positioning algorithm tries to "cascade" new windows, even if sufficient free space exists on the desktop to avoid overlapping existing windows.
In short, with multiple screens i can put an application on its own monitor, quickly maximize it, switch between it and another app on another screen, and keep it together with any other top-level windows it might own without losing them behind other apps. This approximates the functionality i used to get by carefully tiling, positioning, and resizing windows on a single desktop, at a fraction of the cost (for some tasks, i used to spend insane amounts of time on this - at one time, i had Explorer windows that never got closed because when they did i would have to spend time carefully repositioning them again. I had config files tuned to each machine laying out editors. Etc.)
Citizen 20.1.01 'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'
|
|
|
|
|
I use one 19" wide screen at home and two 19" standard monitors at work. I have just recently gotten the second screen and love if. If I could afford a monitor/card at home I would go for a second one.
djj vs.
|
|
|
|
|
One computer I have is hooked up to three 15" CListCtrls, though it's very hard to use multiple monitors/CListCtrls.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. Binding multiple CListCtrl is hard.
I now use a 24-Row CListCtrl and think about a 30row in the future.
|
|
|
|
|
One small 17" (inch) monitor is enough for anyone.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
modified on Tuesday, July 8, 2008 1:41 PM
|
|
|
|
|
I thought so also but after working with the second monitor a lot of the tasks I do became much easier.
djj
|
|
|
|