Jump to content

Talk:Multi-monitor

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apple's support for multimon

[edit]

How about info on using dual screens in presentations--one view is used by the speaker and displays notes, the other is shown to the audience. And didn't Apple have multimon support well before Windows? --Jason McHuff 07:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Apple's had multimon for as long as it's had slots for extra video cards, and OS/2 had it before Windows but the second monitor was text-only - useful for debugging. Actually I've only ever used multiple video card setups - I'd just thought the ones with two kinds of connectors were so you had a choice of which to use. --Jamoche 18:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image

[edit]

The apple image is very nice. But the PC image is very ugly. Maybe we should remove PC image and only have Apple. Point is dual monitor, no matter if apple or pc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frap (talk • contribs) 16:30, February 4, 2006

i concur Zvesoulis 18:21, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that a neutral point of view isn't being followed here.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:15, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Increased productivity: Evidence?

[edit]

So, I'm a "believer" (that more monitors = more productivity); but, I'd like to see some citations on this. Particularly-impressive would be studies that don't have funding from "vested interests" (e.g. monitor-makers). I may be cynical, but I don't find the studies of vested interests to be as persuasive... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.201.246.26 (talk • contribs) 19:59, March 28, 2006

I agree that it makes me more productive, but I don't have any sources on that ^^; --Disavian 20:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll cite Bill for you. Shawnc 23:57, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amazing. Do you also need an evidence that 200Hp are stronger than 100hp. Or to that very stupid is nore stupid than less stupid. O Man, you have too much time91.9.242.57 09:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
--Is a citation from Microsoft Research sufficient? Slackmaster K 03:28, July 31, 2007 (UTC)

How about this http://www.productivity501.com/large-and-multiple-monitor-study/708/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.30.43.225 (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is not very difficult to find references that more or bigger monitors increase the productivity. I have added some, more can be found here. Audriusa (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Experience-does it count?

[edit]

I use two seperate computers at my desk, one with moniter's that mirror each other so that my clients can watch me work, if they are there; and the other has side by side so that I can have three different operations going "full screen" at the same time.

I do income taxes and investments, and want more screens up...as many as I can get. Moniters cost $350 each for good 19" jobs. What about cards and other stuff? What is the best setup? As to increased productivity, it is very great. There is no end to benefits...if you are working and have more to do than will get done! Ken 22:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No original research pleaseJasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

One Users Experience of networked Multiple Monitors

[edit]

I use a laptop and spend time in 3 different office locations regularly, taking my laptop to each one. When I get to my central office, I have 3 networked monitors on my desk and available for my laptops use through MaxiVista. (I am typically wirelessly connected to the network, but sometimes plug in the ethernet cable.) More specifically, I have 2 desktop computers in my office, each powering 2 monitors. I use one computer mostly for video/visual editing, and the other for back up and redundancy purposes, or to crunch numbers when I want to free up my laptop CPU, such as watching streaming videos. By clicking a button on my laptop, 3 of the monitors connected to my desktop computers switch from the output of the computer to extended monitors for my laptop (When I am feeling particularly ambitions, I connect the 4th monitor to my external monitor port on my laptop for a total of 5 monitors, but this is uncommon as 3 19" monitors plus my 15" laptop screen are all I tend to need.)

One advantage of this networked approach to multi-monitors is that I can use my laptop mouse and keyboard to run the computers that are part of the system. I can toggle back and forth between 1) using each external monitor as an extension of my laptop screen, 2) use the monitor to display the original computer that powers it, but use the mouse/keyboard of my laptop to control it, or 3) use the monitor only for the original computer, but remain connected so I can toggle to #1 or #2 at the click of a button. I can also cut and paste from one computer to the other, without transferring files, which is helpful, especially when I am doing research using different programs on different computers to distribute the CPU processing load.

Because of the multiple monitor setup, I often have 5-8 programs running and visible at the same time, which helps me 1) see relationships between information 2) compare how the information is presented, 3) cut and paste between documents/computers with greater ease etc. I am FAR more productive in my multi-monitor office than when I only have my laptop. Teloscientist 19:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has very little to do with the article. 128.40.71.129 (talk) 14:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No original research pleaseJasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

virtual screenshots

[edit]

The images of the virtual size of dual screens do not seem useful to me, besides their (possibly intentional) extremely low quality.--MarSch 09:44, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Let's can them. --Disavian 00:50, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
done --MarSch 08:33, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"More than Two Monitors" : SLi and Crossfire?

[edit]

This paragraph gives credit to SLi and Crossfire for why people are expanding beyond two monitors, but I don't agree at all to this. If something should get credit its PCIe with its 2-4 graphic-suitable ports over the old fast AGP + slow PCI combo. If SLi is enabled (perhaps this also goes for CF), you can only have enabled one monitor. To enable the other outputs, the cards have to be in independent mode which kills the entire point of buying two high-end graphics cards. You will only be able to use one GPU to run a single game if you have 1< monitor enabled, which in my oppinion probably make SLi-owners more likely to not have multi monitors. Source : http://www.slizone.com/page/slizone_faq.html#s7 --Brillegeit 00:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its been almost two weeks without comments so I went ahead and updated the article. --Brillegeit 04:15, 10 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accuracy: Single PC Multi Monitor

[edit]

I am concerned with the statement "The latest versions of Windows support a third monitor"

  1. First, which versions are considered recent, especially as new (and future) products are introduced?
  2. Second, support for more than two spanned monitors has been available for quite some time, proven by the fact that the computer at Laser Quest in Wyomissing PA USA has four monitors, each an extension of one computer which runs Windows 3.1.

Allow me to explain... software to register users runs in the first monitor, then, moving to the right, is a monitor that shows scores to users while playing inside the level. Further right is another monitor for the same purpose. To the far right is a monitor in the lobby that shows a simplified leader board. Significance? Freedomlinux 03:51, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you search in the source,i.e., microsoft support homepage, you will discover that WindowsXP can officially support up to 10 monitors. Personally I have already seen a guy using 5 at the same time. In other words, this is statement is, at least, outdated. I dont care about wikipedia so I am not going to edit anything but if you really want the thruth, search in the sources not here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.34.175.164 (talk • contribs) 14:01, April 18, 2007
You can't handle the thruth. 66.208.12.125 17:46, 21 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Windows 7 and recent Ubuntu versions support as many as four monitors no problems. Audriusa (talk) 07:45, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Microsoft Windows can manage 10 monitors since Windows XP (at least) if you can find a display card that can handle it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.39.116.37 (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Limitations?

[edit]

It may be worth adding notes on Vista limitations with multiple monitors (see http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/multimonVista.mspx). --148.134.37.4 17:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article states: "Products such as MaxiVista allow a modern laptop running Windows to extend their desktop to up to three additional monitors powered by networked computers" . This should be removed as Maxivista currently doesn't support Windows Vista WDDM drivers and therefore not the Vista Aero interface. Modern laptops would imply Vista, and that would be inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frishack (talk • contribs) 00:00, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it is worth pointing out that some bizzare setups are possible, even within Vista. I can provide images and video of Aero Glass working on my properly-configured homogenous multi-adapter display configuration with six monitors and three ATI Radeon x1650's. Slackmaster K 21:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Virtual Display Manager

[edit]

How about applications that create Virtual Displays? Examples: Matrox Epica: http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/finent/products/epica/software.php SplitView: http://www.splitview.com Virtual Display Manager: http://www.ishadow.com/Downloads/VDMPreview/tabid/115/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teknica (talk • contribs) 00:07, September 4, 2007

Dual video mirroring support

[edit]

Situations exist where it is not possible to change or add a video card. I am current dealing with a piece of automation equipment(VME) that has built in video and no expansion slots. I need to provide dual monitor support. There are devices that provide dual video mirroring support, but this article makes not mention of them. In my opinion, this article is not complete without a reference to such devices. User:garymanning77 2007 08 05 08:42:45 (EST)

Tools section needs expansion

[edit]

The section right now mentions only Windows. What software options do you have for, say, Mac OS X, Linux, and UNIX? I have no experience in setting up multi-mon configs with those OSs. — EagleOne\Talk 18:32, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Restructuring

[edit]

How should this article be restructured? Captain Zyrain 00:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

: How about #Proposed structure? User:ScotXWt@lk 14:43, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Multi-monitor user templates

[edit]

Check out Wikipedia:Userboxes/Computing#Hardware:

Code Result
|{{Template:User dual monitor}}
Left monitorRight monitorThis user has a dual monitor configuration.
 Usage
|{{Template:User tri monitor}}
This user has a tri-monitor configuration.
 Usage
|{{Template:User quad monitor}}
This user has a quad monitor configuration
 Usage
|{{Template:User multi monitor}}
This user has more monitors than the Nebuchadnezzar.
 Usage

Captain Zyrain 05:48, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


RE: More than two monitors > Using monitors of networked computers

[edit]

The last paragraph implies that Synergy can be used to extend the desktop of one machine onto the monitor of another, much like ScreenRecycler does. This is not the case.

Q. Can synergy share the display in addition to the mouse and keyboard?

A. No. Synergy is a KM solution not a KVM (keyboard, video, mouse) solution. However, future versions will probably support KVM. Hopefully, this will make synergy suitable for managing large numbers of headless servers.

Quote taken from the Synergy FAQ.

Can someone amend this? --scape 20:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Accuracy: First Multi-Head Supporting PC Game

[edit]

While I don't have cites handy, I belive, that, contrary to what the article claims, the first PC game to support multiple monitors was a modified version of Quake that could display differing camera views to seperate X windows. Combined with multiple X servers or the Xinerama extension, this fully supported multi head gaming.

I'll try to find some citations.

-- Levi "Karatorian" Aho - 69.87.200.43 (talk) 03:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doubt that is was officially supported but I have seen the very early flight sims run on multiple monitor setups. This was usually achieved through extra software and using networked PCs to display the extended visual area. This picture has been floating around the 'Net for years.

  1. Flight Sim. pic. [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.213.247 (talk) 23:19, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple monitors video player

[edit]

As the Multi-monitor articles said, there is much limitation on multi-monitor video playback due to graphics card hardware overlay design, although some software such as MatrixDvD Player (from http://www.xj-spark.com) can do this, it seems that there needs some re-design for the old video card architecture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.234.181.211 (talk) 03:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disadvantages

[edit]

"Problems can also arise if the user clicks outside of the full-screen application's display area. Clicking in another display has a similar effect to hitting the Windows key or Alt-Tab, causing the desktop or another application to gain focus. The full-screen application loses focus, and may or may not pause any ongoing events in that application depending on how the software is written." This is not a problem with multiple monitors. This same effect will happen to an application on a single monitor when another application is chosen or when "show desktop" is chosen. 64.126.123.98 (talk) 16:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)bbasch[reply]

Some of this section seems to assume the use of Microsoft Windows. Mainly "Windows key or Alt-Tab". This section is also very vague, although if specific details were included they would probably be long winded and not very useful. I think detail ought to be removed. Instead I suggest a general statement along the lines of "full screen applications may behave oddly if they were not designed with multiple monitors in mind." 128.40.71.129 (talk) 14:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Contradicting Facts: maximum supported monitors by Microsoft OS(s)

[edit]

The last sentences of the ==Display Modes== and ==Commercial Systems== sections specify a different maximum number of display outputs supported by Microsoft Operating System(s), although both limits (10 and 64 respectively) claim that Windows 7 is affected (both "current Microsoft operating systems" and "The latest version of Microsoft Windows" include Windows 7). Some information about this can be found here: [2], where a Microsoft Moderator stated, "I know a Microsoft guy tested 16 at once, it seems Windows 7 support it." . Redex777 (talk) 17:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. It seems that 10 is what Windows' multi-display manager supports, but 64 is the absolute limit, but there is no citation.Jasper Deng (talk) 20:52, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PCI bandwidth limitations?

[edit]

The article suggests that more than 2 monitors is not possible (or at least not practical) with pre-PCIe systems, due to bandwidth limitations of PCI. Given that a 16 MHz NuBus-based Mac can easily handle 3 monitors, i question this assertion. Surely a 100+ MHz PCI-based motherboard can keep up—even with deeper displays. If it can't, i'm inclined to suspect other reasons (like squanderous resource management), unless PCI is really that poorly designed. I dropped a {{fact}} tag in the relevant paragraph.
—überRegenbogen (talk) 23:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While at it, you added quite a bit of interesting information. Could you add sources to that too please? --Muhandes (talk) 06:23, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave it for someone else to document this and come up with references, but you're both right: PCI can handle video, but it doesn't have sufficient bandwidth for high-performance video, such as the advanced 3-D graphics common in PC games. It's fine for ordinary desktop applications, Excel wouldn't give you much trouble with it. Don't forget that speed and bandwidth are not the same: the PCI bus might be much faster than NuBus, but you also may be dividing the bus bandwidth between more devices. That same PCI bus is also likely to host soundcards, modems (analog or DSL), ethernet, USB & ATA controllers, etc. You rarely have more than 3 NuBus slots on a Mac, but you frequently had 4-6 PCI slots on a PC, and some devices integrated into the motherboard might be attached to the PCI bus. I'm not clear on whether each NuBus slot had a separate bus, but I know that many NuBus Macs had a dedicated video slot, so one or two of those monitors you speak of may not be riding the NuBus at all. You're right to drop a tag, though; it's a good point that deserves to be cleared up, and will make this a better article. Dementia13 (talk) 21:07, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a few specialty PCI video cards which can run above the 133MBps speed of standard PCI. Having the primary display on AGP and a secondary PCI video card for non high performance graphics works fine. Even if two displays are on the same PCI bus, generally both displays aren't displaying changing graphics at the same time. A 1600x1200 display with 16 bit color is 3.66MB of frame buffer. That's a theoretical maximum of 36 FPS for full screen non hardware accelerated video. The performance impact of the slow PCI bus speed on 3D graphics does not depend on screen resolution and it can vary widely from no negative performance impact to significant impact depending on the game being played and the amount of (or lack of) VRAM on the card. 98.214.160.215 (talk) 04:09, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of NPOV

[edit]

Nearly this entire article is written from a IBM PC-compatible hardware running a Microsoft OS POV, hence I've added a POV tag. (And even within that POV it is contradictory but that is covered in other comments.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.62.29.101 (talk) 04:20, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not that it really matters, but I don't see how this is a matter of POV, it is a matter of expansion. I changed the tag accordingly. --Muhandes (talk) 06:25, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. And since nobody's tried to expand the article in almost two years, I've removed the incorrect POV tag. RossPatterson (talk) 17:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A Historical Note: It was, in fact, possible to use two displays in MS-DOS in IBM PCs and clones, albeit in a limited fashion. As originally designed, the PC used a block of 640 kilobytes of memory for running programs; hardware drivers and the system BIOS were in the 384 KB area bounded by A000:0000 and FFFF:FFFF. In particular, this region contained two memory-mapped display areas, a monochrome 80x25 (text) display at B000-B7FF and a 16-color 640x200 pixel-based buffer at C000-CFFF designed for IBM's Color Graphics Adaptor and suitable monitors. Programs could be written to use either region. In practice, most users viewed the color displays only. However, a user with two monitors (on a system with two display adaptors) with one monitor set to text-only mode would see black-and-white text on that monitor, and the regular color display on the other. Generally the text is totally random, but the program may have been designed to display more useful data; programming debuggers frequently used this text buffer, allowing programmers to inspect software variables on one monitor and program output on the second. (Reference: UPPER MEMORY AREA in Wikipedia)

From 1987 onward, EGA and then VGA display adaptors supplanted the original Color Graphics Adaptors, their on-card memory allowing larger displays (640x350 for EGA, several sizes for VGA), and this simple scheme fell out of fashion. Later versions of DOS often gobbled up all available chunks of upper memory, including these display areas, for a variety of drivers and TSR utilities. Modern operating systems make no pretense of using the UMA for any purpose, and the practice of dedicating a single display device to a 32 kilobyte region of core memory has gone into history as completely as Bob Cratchit's goosefeather quill pen.

76.254.18.44 (talk) 07:00, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran a BBS under VGA/HGC dual under DOS 6 until 2005. Very handy when doing a configuration on the bigger color screen while following a text on the little yellow one. A TSR let me paste from one to the other. The computer is sitting with its two monitors in a stack by my right elbow as I write this. Umm, which is a general discussion of the topic since there's no reason for my trip dowm memory lane to lead to the article. Jim.henderson (talk) 01:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What about notebook & laptops?

[edit]

This article makes almost no mention of notebooks and laptops with multi (usually dual) monitors. I don't just mean a single portable connected to an external while still using its built in internal (1+1=2), or multiple externals supported with an extender device or though DisplayPort daisy chaining (In time even the lowliest cell phone will be able to drive quad HD displays.), but rather notebooks/laptops with built-in dual displays. A google image search for "dual display laptop" and "dual display notebook" shows tons, and not just dual-touchscreen models, but portables with two LCDs. To my knowledge the first on the market was the Xentex Flip-Pad Voyager, a beast of a machine with a price to match. It was either a great innovation, totally insanity, ...or maybe both. Since then, there appears to have been some more models of varying practicality and I'd say it's of a level of significance justifying a "portable computing" (or whatever) section to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.85.110 (talk) 02:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This article has many problems, including being up to date. Agreed.Jasper Deng (talk) 07:18, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete list of supported games

[edit]

The vast majority of the items on the list are unsourced. I also question the notability of them. Should the list be deleted?Jasper Deng (talk) 21:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The better question is why you think you need a source for something that can be verified by trying the game in multi or dual-monitor mode. Did you want a CNN article explaining each one of these? Would a gaming website be a credible source for you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.38.25 (talk) 02:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article AMD Eyefinity contains http://support.amd.com/en-us/recommended/eyefinity-software but you find a gazillion of more games running on huge resolutions e.g. on YouTube. Such a list would become very quickly very extensive and exclude games which we forget about. I see no point in such a list. After all, the games just needs to support a huge resolution. User:ScotXWt@lk 12:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yet still it remains. The section looks pretty terrible and the battlefield ones are clearly original research as the edit even states. Including games that are supported just by virtue of supporting any resolution (ie span) is ridiculous as the list would pretty much include most games from the last 15 years as ScotXW suggested. I think it would be more instructive to list games that either support multiple monitors natively, or those that use a second monitor for something else. World in Conflict and Supreme Commander can both be configured natively to use a second monitor of a different resolution to act as a (mini)map.
byo (talk) 04:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Having had another look at it, many of them are not notable and not particular of interest other than forming a list. I am going to remove a lot of them in a week unless anybody has any other suggestions as it looks pretty rubbish as it is. byo (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. I think this fits "an indiscriminate list" fairly well. Hard to maintain, harder to source, and largely unnecessary as mentioned above. If anything, it's just promotional listcruft. Primefac (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bang, and the dust is gone byo (talk) 07:57, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nview

[edit]

Why does nview redirect here? It is a seperate software package including many things, not a general term. I don't know if nview should have it's own page but it shouldn't redirect here, it's just confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.233.69.107 (talk) 22:29, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"Multi-monitor" vs. "Dual-monitor"

[edit]

I've modified the introduction paragraph of the article to reflect the correct usage of the terms "multi-monitor" and "dual-monitor". As "multi-" simply means "any number over one", it is a category rather than a specific number. "Dual-" specifies that a systems has TWO displays, which means that while a dual-monitor is a type of multi-monitor, a multi-monitor is NOT a type of dual-monitor. The two terms are not interchangeable when being used to describe any system other than one with two displays.

The argument could be made that the term "dual-screen" is often used to refer to any multi-monitor, however that does not make it correct. A dual-monitor has a specified number of displays and should not be used to refer to just any multi-monitor system. ThsTorturedSoul (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct in stating the truth. Yet technically solutions (=special display controllers) supporting more than dual-monitor are technically less feasible, e.g. AMD Eyefinity only can support two monitors, if they are connected over anything else then DisplayPort, i.e. VGA, HDMI or DVI! But in case you have DisplayPor-Monitors, one graphics card can drive six monitors. The actual problem of the article, is that has became "smeared" and to big. The technical stuff is quite quickly explained: if one card should driver multiple monitor, than its display controller needs to support it. Then the connection is important. And the device driver should facilitate an easy set-up, like e.g. AMD Catalyst does. Then you may need additional support by something like Xinerama or RandR, stupid X11 :-( User:ScotXWt@lk 12:49, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nVidia driver that supports span-mode

[edit]

Perhaps state a version number for nVidia drivers that support span mode under Windows XP. I dual boot WinXP/Win7 as I have found a number of games that don't run under Win7 (plus the fact that nVidia refuse to fix their driver & add span mode back in). Maybe even just list them here. I am currently running driver version 190.45 and use span mode with no problems (WinXP or course). Should mention that running an older driver makes it difficult to get support and is generally not recommended (although WinXP isn't supported by Micro$oft anymore either), but I have had no problems running an nVidia 210 video card with this driver.

Just to clear it from the text:

nVidia driver 190.45 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.213.247 (talk) 23:29, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Me again, nearly time for a WinXP re-install, so I've been trying slightly newer drivers & checking for span mode (still on nVidia 210 card).

Found drivers at Guru3D.com
Ones that support span mode:

  • 190.45 190.62 191.07 195.62 196.21 197.77

    • Also, out of interest, ran 3Dmark 06 after v191.07 & v197.77 to see if there was a difference. Ended up being about 40 points better in the score, although the CPU was 30 points higher too (maybe from vidia card doing better job ??). Another thing I have noticed, recently I got a LCD TV with both SVGA & HDMI connectors. When the HDMI is connected to my video card span mode disappears from my multi-monitor options (even when HDMI monitor isn't an active display). My nVidia 210 has SVGA, DVI & HDMI connections.

    rewrite

    [edit]

    Why not write something similar to AMD Eyefinity for the Nvidia, Intel, Matrox, etc. "solutions"/"brands"/"products" as well? Available, missing or limited support by operating systems or device drivers for them, e.g. AMD Catalyst or KMS driver or Xinerama/RandR, could also be documented there – in the corresponding articles – instead of clotting and bloating this article. Finally this article could concentrate of uses cases, e.g. uses in offices of Stockbrokers, or for Digital audio workstations, for gaming, etc. Available limitations of certain products could be mentioned. User:ScotXWt@lk 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed structure

    [edit]
    1. Implementation / Realization: the display controllers have to support it, multiple RAMDACs, etc.
      1. products
        1. AMD Eyefinity
        2. Nvidia Surround
        3. Matrox: three monitors by graphics cards, additionally product line of Matrox Graphics eXpansion Modules
        4. Intel?
        5. etc.
    2. Adoption
      1. Office
        1. Stockbrokers
        2. Software development, Video game development, programming
      2. Artists
        1. Film postprocessing
        2. Digital image bla
        3. Digital audio workstations
      3. Gaming

    That would mention products and maybe do some averting, but in a clean way. User:ScotXWt@lk 13:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    DOS Multi-monitor

    [edit]

    Beside the MDA/VGA setup, a PC under DOS could run MDA/VGA/8514A hardware concurrently for a tripple-monitor setup. DESQview could make use of this - programs could be placed on any of the three monitors. The programs running on the 8514A couldn't make the assumption they owned the CGA/VGA address space, otherwise, the output would bleed over to the VGA monitor. 24.51.217.118 (talk) 06:11, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Hello fellow Wikipedians,

    I have just modified 2 external links on Multi-monitor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

    When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

    This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

    • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
    • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

    Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Multi-monitor&oldid=1209248196"