Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Double Your Fun with DoubleSight

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the two-for-the-price-of-three dept.

Displays 344

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..."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

W00t (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729620)


"Double your Fun...." (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729896)

Hey, the headline looks like most of the spam I get.

LCD's (5, Insightful)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 (1)

the_Bionic_lemming (446569) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729654)

Crap - Should of previewed - I meant "About" - I've read in some stores that you have to have at least a dozen dead pixles before youcan return the monitor.

On a side note? Two minutes between posts? 8/ Jeez - one minute was bad enough /.

Re:LCD's (1)

Eugene (6671) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729697)

usually there's a policy that under X number of stuck/dead pixel in a given size (15", 17", and so on) is normal, you can only exchange it for another one if the stuck/dead pixel is above the monitor's policy. (or there's 2 stuck pixels within certain distance to each other)

Re:LCD's (-1)

MasamuneXGP (824006) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729733)

"Blurring" is a result of not using the moniter at it's optimum resolution. If you use the optimum resolution listed in the specs of the moniter, there will be zero blur.

Re:LCD's (2, Informative)

modecx (130548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729771)

That's called interpolation. Not blurring, or ghosting. The monitor has to scale the image up to it's native resolution. Sometimes, a resolution that's a factor of an LCD's native resolution will look okay. This isn't an issue for most people.

What he's talking about is response time, which is the amount of time it takes an individual pixel to fully change from one color to another.. It's usually measured as the time between going from white to black, or from one grey to another grey... There is a definite, measurable response time on both LCDs and CRTs, but they have different implications.

Re:LCD's (4, Informative)

modecx (130548) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Worse than That = Flickering (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729768)

I have a brand-new 17" Envision monitor, and it actually flickers horribly [] .

I read the instruction manual, and it tells me that flicker is normal. What gives?

Re:LCD's (3, Funny)

McGiraf (196030) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729799)

yeah nice... but to get double sight it's cheaper to buy beer.

Re:LCD's (1)

Norny (9940) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729920)

I think you explained why it blurs in your own comment "We have cheap LCD's...". That's why I invested $600 on a good viewsonic.

Re:LCD's (1)

timothv (730957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729949)

Ghosting has been significantly reduced in the past year. OverDrive panels [] Viewsonic VX924 [] (faster response, more noise)

CRT can do this too (2, Interesting)

camcorder (759720) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729633)

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.

Re:CRT can do this too (1)

Uber Banker (655221) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729685)

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...

Re:CRT can do this too (1)

Tet (2721) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729964)

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 resolution for me anyway (although that is changing, and it won't be long before mainstream LCDs get to a decent resolution).

No, it isn't. (4, Informative)

sglider (648795) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729635)

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. (4, Informative)

Klar (522420) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729663)

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.

Re:No, it isn't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729707)

> All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.

Agreed. In my experience there are two types of people, those who have two (or more) monitors, and those who have never tried it. My coworker used to make fun of my three monitors. One day I installed a 14" secondary monitor on his computer. Now he'd shoot me if I tried to remove it.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

ArmorFiend (151674) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729859)

You'll have to invent a third type of people to include me. I tried dual head, but there was a big annoying FRAME running through the middle of my screen. Putting windows fully on one side or the other of the boundary was a bother. In the end it just wasn't worth the window-manager-fiddling-time or desk real-estate.

So in the end I did away with dual head, bought a $600 20" monitor that does 2048x1532, and haven't looked back.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

LurkerXXX (667952) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729951)

That isn't a third type of person. You are are just a single monitor person. You do realize there are people doing multi-heads with 20" high res montitors as well, don't you?

Re:No, it isn't. (2, Funny)

Esion Modnar (632431) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729765)

All the people I know who have had two monitors never go back.

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

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

St. Arbirix (218306) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729811)

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.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

mlrtime (520968) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729831)

You don't know me then, got rid of my first and only powerbook. I'm going back to a thinkpad and not looking back. .02

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

ucblockhead (63650) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729858)

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.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

Slayk (691976) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729863)

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 to change what window it being displayed on a single head system (with a non-trivial amount of applications open. I find while at work I'll have anywhere between 6-12 depending on what I'm doing), you won't want to go back to having one monitor without a fight. Having a (real)desktop pager only partially alleviates this issue, since you can organize what applications you have up in a given desktop, but you can't keep access to it available the instant you need to reference it.

Other nice things are being able to have a video playing on one monitor and still browse/code in the other (assuming your player of choice handles dualhead well. xine+twinview is a mess, while totem and mplayer do a respectable job)

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

sH4RD (749216) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729691)

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 to get one screen which works well? Do one thing, and do it well.

Re:No, it isn't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729760)

Hardly believable. Motion blurring is an inherent flaw of hold-type displays, which includes all LCDs.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

taylortbb (759869) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729943)

No, it is a result of slow displays. I too have a 17" Dell Flat Panel and I have no problem at all with ghosting during gaming and movies.

(And I do know what to look for, I also have a 17" BenQ illuminated crap (yes, it's that bad) and the ghosting is horrible)

I may not like having a Dell computer that much, but my Dell Flat Panel is the nicest I've seen.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

timothv (730957) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729934)

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.

Re:No, it isn't. (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729712)

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, so one screen is an LCD, it works pretty nice, I can keep tabs on a lot more things now.

Re:No, it isn't. (0)

doc modulo (568776) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729718)

Great sig.

Re:No, it isn't. (4, Informative)

steeef (98372) | more than 9 years ago | (#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 [] 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.

mirror (3, Funny)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729639)

Mirror mirror on the web
please copy this website
so that this slashdotting might ebb.


Re:mirror (5, Informative)

v3rgEz (125380) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729650) ac86a888d47/index.html

Just check next time. They automatically do it.

Re:mirror (1)

fatwreckfan (322865) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729740)

Working link []

Re:mirror (1)

kalleguld (624992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729877)

But only page 1 works :/

Never! (1)

johansalk (818687) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729646)

I threw out the LCD and got two old CRTs!

Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729648)

...what about the permanent bow in my chair?

Just get two of the same LCD (5, Informative)

DaRat (678130) | more than 9 years ago | (#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.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729750)

i picked up 2 dell 2005fpw (20.1" widescreen) for $400 each. 3360x1050 resolution... drool.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729753)

But this is Slashdot man, where is your product placement and avertisement hidden in a news post?

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729758)

LCD prices are coming down a lot, you don't have to pay $500/screen anymore. For instance, at Newegg you can get the same panel I have, the LG L1930B, for ~$300. It uses an S-IPS matrix, which is the same kind as in the Apple Cinema Displays. Prices are supposed to drop even further throughout the year as well.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (1)

gabebear (251933) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729929)

I just picked up a Balance 19" 1280x1024 LCD w/ DVI & VGA at Walmart for $300. The nicest thing about it was that I could take it back for ANY reason for 2 weeks(it had a sticker saying so).

My Balance LCD is pretty nice, it has excellent contrast/brightness, but does have some color shift starting at about 45 degrees and has some reallllllly pitiful speakers.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (1)

Lockz (556773) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729792)

Still requires more deskspace though. The monitors here share a single arm, which means that you can put more things around them (if your desk is cluttered) or you can use a smaller desk or table to put the monitor on.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (2, Interesting)

Slack3r78 (596506) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729833)

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 leaving everything open. A widescreen allows you to work in a manner similar to a dual monitor setup, but without forcing your brain to constantly context-switch between the two displays. It's really a great compromise, IMO.

Re:Just get two of the same LCD (1)

crazy blade (519548) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729921)

Maybe this thing takes one video input of 2560x1024 resolution and displays it across the two screens? (i.e. no need for two video cards / one dual-head card)?

If it doesn't, I agree with you that it's more like a huge waste of money. Oh well, I guess we'll never know... Nobody on /. will RTFA! ;-)

Subscriber-free! (5, Insightful)

Ochu (877326) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729656)

Shouldn't be getting that many subscribers posting to this one; after all, they pay not to receive ads.

Two is the wrong number (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729661)

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.

Re:Two is the wrong number (1)

xenotrout (680453) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729814)

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.

Re:Two is the wrong number (2, Insightful)

cbr2702 (750255) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729875)

With two you can put your documentation on one screen and your code on the next.

Re:Two is the wrong number (1)

VoidEngineer (633446) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729957)

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

2.6/3.8 ~= 68%

That extra inch of monitor real estate on each monitor translates into a whopping 32% increase in screen real estate and screen resolution. If you're going to go with a dual monitor setup, go for the 20" monitors with 1600x1200 resolution. It may wind up being the best $500 upgrade you'll ever see.

Re:Two is the wrong number (1)

n6mod (17734) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729962)

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'm working on in the vim window on the other screen.

One thought that occurred to me, as I read all the "but there's a bezel in the center" comments:

Do you remember "books"?


Why? (1)

bleckywelcky (518520) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729669)

Why would I pay over $1000 for this rig when I can pick up 2 Dell 1905s for $250 a piece?

Re:Why? (1)

klang (27062) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729700)

Because it whould be easier to have your boss sign one once instead of twice?

Personally, I would go for 3 of these Dell1905's and avoid the hazzle of looking into the seam between the screens all the time, but that's just me..

Re:Why? (1)

xenotrout (680453) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729827)

As I've said to another post, you can save the cost of one monitor if the only reason for three instead of two is the seam--have one as you would an only monitor, and put the other next to it (thus it's a side monitor to your center monitor). Yes, you lose symetry, but this setup works fine for me.

Re:Why? (1)

gkuz (706134) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729813)

Where are you getting Dell 1905's for $250/ea? Al's Midnight Discount?

2560x1024 fractal wallpapers (1)

lycium (802086) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729678)

since i have a 2560x1024 (crt) setup myself i've made some spangly wallpapers for that resolution...

they're available as the "pixelbath" series on deviantart ( [] and on a faster server ( [] ).

Don't throw it out (1)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729693)

Give it to me :)

Increase Productivity Substantially (1)

drooling-dog (189103) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729709)

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'...

Re:Increase Productivity Substantially (4, Funny)

yotto (590067) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729803)

*Exactly how many pixels does it take to increase productivity substantially?*

Apparently, about a million. I'd say round it to a million, maybe make 1,000,000 pixels == 1 substantial productivity increase, call it 1Mipx=1spi

Productivity (0, Offtopic)

Trollstoi (888703) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729710)

enough to increase productivity substantially

Will it also increase my productivity if I work with Word documents?

Why buy 2 monitors (1)

stuttering stan (889500) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729713)

I j-just cr-cross my eyes!

Resolutions on LCDs... Continuing dissappointment. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729714)

Only 2560x1024 ie: 1280x1024 x 2.

I continue to be dissappointed with LCD resolutions that I see for LCDs... ie: a 19 inch that is only 1280x1024.

Perhaps I'm spoiled, but my Sony VAIO laptop has a 16.1 inch, 1600x1200 LCD that is awesome. I run a 19 inch CRT off it when at home, at a 1600x1200 resolution as well, for a 3200x1200 workspace.

This much money for a much smaller one??

More Pixels But Less Dead Pixels (1)

reporter (666905) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729717)

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 suffer from dead pixels. If my monitor had dead pixels, then I would want to promptly get a refund on the monitor.

The computer companies have conspired to contruct a marketing solution, instead of an engineering solution, to the dead-pixel problem. They simply convinced a standards body to officially declare that having, say, 8 (?) or fewer pixels means that the monitor is operating normally. Some stores (especially, the Internet variety) refuse to give a refund on any monitor that is returned due to 8 or fewer dead pixels.

Re:More Pixels But Less Dead Pixels (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729845)

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.

Your boss is so cheap he/she/it wouldn't get you a non-blurry monitor? Decent CRTs are cheap, much cheaper than OSHA claims.

Not enough! (2, Interesting)

scoopr (849708) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729720)

Ah, but if we are going to go this route, I'd rather go for this [] offering.

(Sorry, the site is rather awful, check out the source, eww)

Is there a rate sheet somewhere? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729721)

I mean, if this isn't a "slashvertisement," I don't know what is.

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729787)

tru dat.

Re:Is there a rate sheet somewhere? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729945)

I've done business with taco before, and below is a copy of their not-so-secret advertising rates. Make of it what you will, but I think it's a great deal:
MAINPAGE SLASHVERT: $blowjob w/ $rimjob
DUPED MAINPAGE SLASHVERT: $full-on anal w/ reacharound

"Increase productivity substantially"? (1)

slavemowgli (585321) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729722)

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 upon personal experience here: I used to use two screens at work for a long time (21" CRTs), and while it was nice to be able to put things like xload windows etc. on the second screen so you could keep an eye on them without wasting screen real estate on the primary screen, having a second screen is overrated.

The only exception I can think of is when you need to debug an application and can run the debugger on one screen while the application outputs to the second screen - but that's really a very special case.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729769)

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.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729801)

We service quite a few small businesses that love dual LCDs. CAD work, engineering, even savvy
administrative staff that work in MS Word/excel use them. Most with dual 17" BENQ units.

They would have never used CRTs, though - too big/bulky/ugly for the standard user.

Re:"Increase productivity substantially"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729815)

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

And the price is ... (2, Insightful)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729736)

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 [] 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)

Re:And the price is ... (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729800)

I will happily pay the extra top get the $1337 version pwnz0rz

Re:And the price is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729861)

A bunch of companies make dual+ lcd monitor mounts. i.asp [] w []

Unfortunately, they come in at $200+ also, so buying this DualView would be a bit easier, and maybe cheaper.

Hate to follow up a slashvertisement with more advertising, but oh well. I'm sure you can handle it.

two monitors, like that, does not work. (0, Redundant)

Lord Bitman (95493) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729751)

Hey! Let's put a line down the middle of where I look! Great idea!

CRTs are getting cheaper and cheaper- and often have better resolution (and certainly more support for different resolutions, in case you *gasp* want to change resolutions sometimes.)

Odd numbers only, please. You _need_ unobstructed view in the center.

Try it, you'll like it (4, Interesting)

Greg Hullender (621024) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729754)

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.) :-)


Re:Try it, you'll like it (1)

kalleguld (624992) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729902)

hehe, or having World of warcraft on one, and on the other.

Re:Try it, you'll like it (1)

eyeye (653962) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729925)

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.

For only $750 you can get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729756)

the old model on esc/0/25 []

may be "RipAGeek" would be a better name for that webshop...

$1100.00 ?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729767)

Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha That's about the cost of four 19" LCDs

Double your Fun with a Dual-CPU server (0, Offtopic)

enoraM (749327) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729770)

I would love to double might sight on that site, but the images already take minutes to load.

This technology innovation is old news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729776)

Old news about multiple screen LCDs.

e.g.: htm []

Futurama (1)

wildzer0 (889523) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729795)

Woohoo, one step closer to Futurama reality: Presented in DoubleVision (where drunk)

Picture (1)

wviperw (706068) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729797)

Picture here []

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.

New term " air space " (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729844)

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.

U wana see big LCDs? (1)

Viper_Viper (881780) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729846)

For all your extreamly expensive, high quallity, multiple LCD moniters, check out []

It's crap (1)

David_Bloom (578245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729847)

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 [] and get a dual monitor VESA mount [] .

Re:It's crap (1)

David_Bloom (578245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729868)

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.

Re:It's crap (1)

lewiz (33370) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729893)

The two VP171bs are working out great for me... but the price of the dual monitor VESA mount is just horrendous!

Re:It's crap (1)

David_Bloom (578245) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729913)

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 :(.

Re:It's crap (1)

whit3 (318913) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729960)

While it sounds nice to put CRT monitors cheek by jowl, that
will cause odd shimmy screen misbehavior. Trust me, I've
done it. You need a few inches space (on the order of half
the width of a monitor) separation to keep CRT displays

Single LCD displays at 30" are big enough for any single
window of info, and very pretty (if you can afford Apple's biggest and best).

For cheapskates like me, the old CRT still has a few years of useful life. Tubes rule!

Err, whats the point? (1)

M3rk1n_Muffl3y (833866) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729850)

At work I have two 19" screens at they work perfectly and were probably cheaper than this behemoth. Also, when I am buying branded monitors I have pretty good idea what I am getting, which I am not sure can be said for these guys. Sorry but it seems just like another gimmick. Anyway if you've got money to burn check out this bad boy []

$1100 for two monitors? (1)

mpn14tech (716482) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729874)

I just switched to using three 19 inch lcd displays. Between displays and two video cards(one dual and one single) I have about $1400 into my setup. I am sure I could have gotten the price down a few hundred less than that if I had shopped around. Going with multiple monitors is well worth it.

What the... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#12729879)

This thing looks like a two headed monster! What happened to seamlessly (or as close as possible) connecting the two LCD panels? What a piece of crap!

Prior art? (1)

nEoN nOoDlE (27594) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729881)

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.

Tigervista have been doing this for years. (4, Insightful)

MrAngryForNoReason (711935) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729886)

Digital Tigers [] 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.

Whoa, what news this is... (1)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729897)

I mean, no one has ever seen these over at [] and no one has ever visite [] . I am astounded that this stuff exists. Dual monitors. Wow.

Okay, dripping sarcasm aside, maybe there's a couple /.ers who haven't crawled out from under the glare of their monitors to look around and see what's new, but I am pretty sure most know that these things are out.

Yeah, you could go with a standard CRT, but I moved a 32 inch television the other day and used to roll out 21 inchers to coders at a former job and I really don't need to finally get a hernia. Personally, I'm waiting for laser based projectors to come down in cost.

Nothing special, really... (3, Interesting)

thanq (321486) | more than 9 years ago | (#12729898)

It does not look that exciting: large res image here [] .

It is much cheaper do one yourself with your own LCD's and a stand like these: horizontal [] or vertical [] .
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?