Multiple monitors

Hi,

In the past, I've configured each *pair* of workstations
in my work area to support a pair of 4:3 monitors, side by
side -- using the A/B switches in the monitors themselves
to select between which of the workstations' displays is
presented on that monitor (e.g., Workstation A displays
1 and 2 on the two monitors; Workstation B displays 1 and 2
on the two monitors; WS A 1 on monitor 1 with WS B 2 on
monitor 2; etc.).  This has made it easy for me to consult
one machine while working on another -- as well as having
bigger "desktops" on either.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thx,
--don

On 8/23/14, 3:09 PM, Don Y wrote:
> Hi,

> So, I am looking into adding another pair of monitors to my
> primary pair of workstations (again, using A/B switches to
> decide how the monitors are used, dynamically).
>
> But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it
> seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there".
> (Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be
> constant and relatively short).
>
> If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am
> watching a tennis match!  :-/  And, the "far" monitors start
> to tax my near vision...
>
> Thx,
> --don

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

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:09:04 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

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

Most people get used to the bezels after a while.  Or, you can use
some tricky software to get rid of the bezel transitions:
<http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/bezel/>

Would 5760x1080 suffice?
<http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/digital_se/>
Note that this is Display Port, DVI, or Thunderbolt but not HDMI.
More:
<http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/>
There are other such multi-headed video cards and adapters, but this
is one that I've used recently.

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

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

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

>Anyone been down this road with firsthand comments?

I had two 24 inch 1920x1200 (LG Flatron L246W) monitors on my desk.
Each monitors supports PIP (picture-in-picture) which I used to
monitor a 2nd workstation.  The shrunken picture is really too small
to do much with graphics, but just fine for text only, such as
watching log files scroll and port scans of my firewall.  With the two
monitors, that lets me run 4 computahs.  However, I usually just run
it as one big 3840x1200 desktop.  I've also tried it with both
monitors in portrait mode as 2400x1920, which proved to be useless
because the bezel tended to be in the middle of everything I was
doing.  Unfortunately, this model monitor has some design issues in
the power supply section.  One of my monitors blew up again a month
ago, and I haven't had time to fix it.
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/repair/slides/LG%20L246WP.html>
(Note the missing 3rd filter cap).

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

>Note I don't
>use these machines for "entertainment" (I don't watch movies, etc.).

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

>And, ideally, I'd like to leverage existing kit instead of making
>new investments (at a time when I am trying to get *rid* of kit!)

I can't help there since I'm not familiar with your existing hardware
and existing operating system.  Incidentally the big surprise for me
was the cost of dual VESA 100 monitor mount that would work for 24"
screens.  For example:
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/400669222972>
<http://www.ebay.com/itm/400669217966>
I ended up building one for myself out of Unistrut and plumbing parts,
and paying the price of the fancy model for my customers.  The desk
clamp turned out to be rather marginal (it bends) which I reinforced
with some scrap metal.  If the clamp looks flimsy, it probably is.






-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Hi Richard,

On 8/23/2014 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
> On 8/23/14, 3:09 PM, Don Y wrote:

>> But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it
>> seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there".
>> (Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be
>> constant and relatively short).
>>
>> If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am
>> watching a tennis match! :-/ And, the "far" monitors start
>> to tax my near vision...
>
> One thing I have done with a multi-monitor setup is to put the monitors
> in an arc so that the end one are still about the same distance away as
> the center ones.

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

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

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

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

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

Hi Jeff,

On 8/23/2014 6:44 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:09:04 -0700, Don Y<this@is.not.me.com>  wrote:
>
>> I'm thinking that a compromise might be to rotate the displays
>> (portrait orientation) and possibly downsize to 21" monitors.
>> This puts the top of the visible display area at about the limit
>> of a comfortable "look up" and narrows the cumulative display
>> (less "tennis court-ish") width.  Say 4800x1600?  But, with lots
>> of bezels chopping up the field of view (this isn't as big a
>> problem in landscape mode as you have a fair bit of "width" on
>> each monitor to work with!)
>
> Most people get used to the bezels after a while.  Or, you can use
> some tricky software to get rid of the bezel transitions:
> <http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/bezel/>

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

> Would 5760x1080 suffice?
> <http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/th2go/digital_se/>
> Note that this is Display Port, DVI, or Thunderbolt but not HDMI.
> More:
> <http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/gxm/>
> There are other such multi-headed video cards and adapters, but this
> is one that I've used recently.

I have a couple of:
<http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9140lppciex16/> 
that I figure would be acceptable.  But, probably
would still only run the monitors at 1600x1200 (text starts to get
too fine when you move to higher resolutions on SMALLER screens)

> Incidentally, AOL 9.7 has problems with the "Retina" like displays on
> Windoze 8.1.  It works but is a bit messy.  In general, programs that
> handle their own screen fonts usually screw up badly.  Fortunately,
> CAD and simulation software are accustomed to large screens and handle
> them nicely.
>
>> Alternatively, buy a pair of wide 30" monitors -- I suspect that
>> gives me roughly the same "desktop" (?).  And, eliminates some of
>> the "bezel" issues...
>
> I recently had one of my customers buy three identical 24" TV monitors
> without asking me first.  They were just fine for watching TV, but a
> disaster for computing.  They were all stuck at 1366x768 resolution
> maximum.  The resultant 4098x768 screen was useless.  Everything
> document that he had to read, required scrolling all 3 screens up and
> down to see the entire document.  When that much display real estate
> moves at the same time, motion sickness can be a problem.  The owner
> had no problems (he claims) but it sure made me sea sick.

No provisions to fine tune the video output?

>> Anyone been down this road with firsthand comments?
>
> I had two 24 inch 1920x1200 (LG Flatron L246W) monitors on my desk.
> Each monitors supports PIP (picture-in-picture) which I used to
> monitor a 2nd workstation.  The shrunken picture is really too small
> to do much with graphics, but just fine for text only, such as
> watching log files scroll and port scans of my firewall.

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

> With the two monitors, that lets me run 4 computahs.

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

> However, I usually just run
> it as one big 3840x1200 desktop.  I've also tried it with both
> monitors in portrait mode as 2400x1920, which proved to be useless
> because the bezel tended to be in the middle of everything I was
> doing.

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

> Unfortunately, this model monitor has some design issues in
> the power supply section.  One of my monitors blew up again a month
> ago, and I haven't had time to fix it.
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/pics/repair/slides/LG%20L246WP.html>
> (Note the missing 3rd filter cap).
>
> I also have some CAD and stockbroker customers that are into multiple
> monitors.  However, these were not planned and consist of random
> displays and dissimilar display cards.  Not the best looking but quite
> functional.  Mostly, they want to keep their main program on a big
> monitor, while using the small monitor to lookup parts, specs, lists,
> address book, and other trivia.

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

>> Note I don't
>> use these machines for "entertainment" (I don't watch movies, etc.).
>
> Full disclosure.  I like to watch Netflix on the 2nd display or in the
> small PIP window while working.  If I see something interesting, I
> punch a button on the monitor, and switch inputs.  One of the nice
> things about working for myself is that I can get away with such
> nonsense.

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

>> And, ideally, I'd like to leverage existing kit instead of making
>> new investments (at a time when I am trying to get *rid* of kit!)
>
> I can't help there since I'm not familiar with your existing hardware
> and existing operating system.  Incidentally the big surprise for me
> was the cost of dual VESA 100 monitor mount that would work for 24"
> screens.  For example:
> <http://www.ebay.com/itm/400669222972>
> <http://www.ebay.com/itm/400669217966>
> I ended up building one for myself out of Unistrut and plumbing parts,
> and paying the price of the fancy model for my customers.  The desk
> clamp turned out to be rather marginal (it bends) which I reinforced
> with some scrap metal.  If the clamp looks flimsy, it probably is.

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

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 19:13:57 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Richard,
>
>On 8/23/2014 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/23/14, 3:09 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
>>> But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it
>>> seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there".
>>> (Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be
>>> constant and relatively short).
>>>
>>> If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am
>>> watching a tennis match! :-/ And, the "far" monitors start
>>> to tax my near vision...
>>
>> One thing I have done with a multi-monitor setup is to put the monitors
>> in an arc so that the end one are still about the same distance away as
>> the center ones.
>
>Yes, with a pair of monitors, it's trivial to just arrange them
>at a slight angle wrt each other so the eye-monitor distance
>remains relatively constant (about 26-28" in my case).  I can
>comfortably take in *most* of both screens while facing straight
>ahead; and very little side to side motion to take in the extremes
>of each as required.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Glasses.

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:15:18 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>The bigger
>issue is the 4:3 orientation seems more "appropriate" to most
>of the (program) user interfaces with which I regularly interact.
>I.e., forcing one of these UI's to fit in the narrower "space
>between bezels" would make it ~25% smaller.

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

>I have a couple of:
><http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9140lppciex16/> 
>that I figure would be acceptable.  

Yep.  It will work, but won't be particularly speedy if you're doing
video.  With 4 DVI outputs, only 512KB of DDR2 RAM, and sign of any
kind of acceleration features in firmware, it's going to be rather
slow.  I couldn't find the card in the benchmark results at:
<http://www.3dmark.com>
I'll look some more later.

>But, probably
>would still only run the monitors at 1600x1200 (text starts to get
>too fine when you move to higher resolutions on SMALLER screens)

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

>> When that much display real estate
>> moves at the same time, motion sickness can be a problem.  The owner
>> had no problems (he claims) but it sure made me sea sick.
>
>No provisions to fine tune the video output?

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

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

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

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

Yep.  What that taught me was to ignore the horizontal dot pitch and
concentrate on getting the largest number of vertical pixels possible.
For 24" that's about 1200 pixels.  For 27", I can go to 2560x1440.  I
guess when I run out of space for more icons on my desktop, I can
justify a bigger monitor:
<http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/desktop.jpg>

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

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

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

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

-- 
Jeff Liebermann     jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D    http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann     AE6KS    831-336-2558

Hi Jeff,

On 8/23/2014 10:40 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 20:15:18 -0700, Don Y<this@is.not.me.com>  wrote:
>
>> The bigger
>> issue is the 4:3 orientation seems more "appropriate" to most
>> of the (program) user interfaces with which I regularly interact.
>> I.e., forcing one of these UI's to fit in the narrower "space
>> between bezels" would make it ~25% smaller.
>
> In my never humble opinion, switching from 4:3 to 16:9 was one of the
> dumbest decisions (from the user standpoint) ever made by the
> electronics industry.  Do they expect everyone to only watch wide
> screen movies on their computahs?

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

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

>> I have a couple of:
>> <http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/m_series/m9140lppciex16/>
>> that I figure would be acceptable.
>
> Yep.  It will work, but won't be particularly speedy if you're doing
> video.  With 4 DVI outputs, only 512KB of DDR2 RAM, and sign of any
> kind of acceleration features in firmware, it's going to be rather
> slow.  I couldn't find the card in the benchmark results at:
> <http://www.3dmark.com>
> I'll look some more later.

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

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

>> But, probably
>> would still only run the monitors at 1600x1200 (text starts to get
>> too fine when you move to higher resolutions on SMALLER screens)
>
> Maybe a good idea.  1920x1200 on a 24" screen is the best I can do
> before my eyes give out.  However, I had an interesting experience on
> a Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro laptop with 3200x1800 resolution on an 13.3"
> display.
> <http://shop.lenovo.com/us/en/laptops/lenovo/yoga-laptop-series/yoga-laptop-2-pro/>
> Because the dots were smaller and denser, I could read incredibly tiny
> print on the small screen that would be completely unreadable on my
> larger, but fuzzier display.  It wasn't the size that was important,
> but rather the ability to separate detail (i.e. resolution).  If you
> happen to visit a Best Buy store, take a look at the Lenovo Yoga 2
> Pro, and you'll see what is possible with a much higher resolution
> display.

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

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

>> I need the screen real estate to view a schematic while routing a PCB;
>> or, looking at a 3D CAD model of the enclosure into which it fits; or,
>> writing some code while consulting some documentation (about what the
>> code is supposed to *do*!), etc.
>
> Ok, 3 monitors.  One each for the various EDA windows.  I vaguely
> recall one of the EDA vendors advertising or web site literature
> showing a smiling engineer with three LCD displays on his ultra-clean
> desk, with each display showing one aspect of the design process.  I
> also like to read science fiction.

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

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

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

>> That's exactly the problem of which I am wary!  At 3200x1200 (current
>> dual displays), an application can nicely "hog" an entire display.
>> OTOH, moving to 4x(1200x1600) means you can't go quite as far (1200)
>> before encountering a bezel.
>
> Yep.  What that taught me was to ignore the horizontal dot pitch and
> concentrate on getting the largest number of vertical pixels possible.
> For 24" that's about 1200 pixels.  For 27", I can go to 2560x1440.  I
> guess when I run out of space for more icons on my desktop, I can
> justify a bigger monitor:
> <http://802.11junk.com/jeffl/crud/desktop.jpg>

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

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

>> I've had opportunities to rescue multiple monitor mounts.  But, think
>> I can just set N monitors side-by-side on a worksurface just as easily.
>> Had the 2x2 approach been useful, then a fancy mount would have been
>> useful.
>
> My situation is a bit unusual.  I was getting these LG L246W monitors
> very cheap because they came without mounts.  The local vendor of
> information kiosks was selling them very cheap.  He didn't need the
> mount with a kiosk wall mount, so he tossed them.  The monitor in my
> office is held up with a wooden contrivance that I threw together as a
> temporary mount.  That was about 9 months ago and I have yet to find
> something that fits and works.  In the case of my customers, they
> wanted the fancy mount and were willing to pay the price.

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

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

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

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

(sigh)  Too much "stuff"!

On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 12:09:04 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>In the past, I've configured each *pair* of workstations
>in my work area to support a pair of 4:3 monitors, side by
>side -- using the A/B switches in the monitors themselves
>to select between which of the workstations' displays is
>presented on that monitor (e.g., Workstation A displays
>1 and 2 on the two monitors; Workstation B displays 1 and 2
>on the two monitors; WS A 1 on monitor 1 with WS B 2 on
>monitor 2; etc.).  This has made it easy for me to consult
>one machine while working on another -- as well as having
>bigger "desktops" on either.
>
>I've been shedding equipment lately and figure I can get
>rid of some of the workstations I've had to hold onto in order
>to support past clients.  Every pair of workstations I can
>discard frees up a pair of monitors!  And, *space* for them!
>
>So, I am looking into adding another pair of monitors to my
>primary pair of workstations (again, using A/B switches to
>decide how the monitors are used, dynamically).
>
>But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it
>seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there".
>(Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be
>constant and relatively short).
>
>If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am
>watching a tennis match!  :-/  And, the "far" monitors start
>to tax my near vision...
>
>I'm thinking that a compromise might be to rotate the displays
>(portrait orientation) and possibly downsize to 21" monitors.
>This puts the top of the visible display area at about the limit
>of a comfortable "look up" and narrows the cumulative display
>(less "tennis court-ish") width.  Say 4800x1600?  But, with lots
>of bezels chopping up the field of view (this isn't as big a
>problem in landscape mode as you have a fair bit of "width" on
>each monitor to work with!)
>
>Alternatively, buy a pair of wide 30" monitors -- I suspect that
>gives me roughly the same "desktop" (?).  And, eliminates some of
>the "bezel" issues...
>
>Anyone been down this road with firsthand comments?  Note I don't
>use these machines for "entertainment" (I don't watch movies, etc.).
>And, ideally, I'd like to leverage existing kit instead of making
>new investments (at a time when I am trying to get *rid* of kit!)
>
>Thx,
>--don

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

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

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

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

With 4:3 displays, the portrait mode would make sense especially in
the 1x7 configuration (21:4=5.25), but due to the huge TV market
(1920:1080) of 16:9 panels, the 1x3 landscape arrangement would be
48:9 or 16:3=5.33, practically the same width would be available with
only 3 panels instead of 7  panels.

On 8/23/14, 10:13 PM, Don Y wrote:
> Hi Richard,
>
> On 8/23/2014 5:20 PM, Richard Damon wrote:
>> On 8/23/14, 3:09 PM, Don Y wrote:
>
>>> But, a 2x2 arrangement puts the top displays far too high -- it
>>> seems like my head is tipped far back to read "up there".
>>> (Keep in mind, distance between eyes and ALL monitors must be
>>> constant and relatively short).
>>>
>>> If, instead, I opt for a 4x1 arrangement, it seems like I am
>>> watching a tennis match! :-/ And, the "far" monitors start
>>> to tax my near vision...
>>
>> One thing I have done with a multi-monitor setup is to put the monitors
>> in an arc so that the end one are still about the same distance away as
>> the center ones.
>
> Yes, with a pair of monitors, it's trivial to just arrange them
> at a slight angle wrt each other so the eye-monitor distance
> remains relatively constant (about 26-28" in my case).  I can
> comfortably take in *most* of both screens while facing straight
> ahead; and very little side to side motion to take in the extremes
> of each as required.
>
> But, increasing this to 4 monitors (landscape) either requires
> moving the monitors farther away (to keep the angles between them
> shallower) *or* you end up literally having to "turn your head"
> to see the far left or far right monitor.
>
> I was hoping making the monitors "narrower" (by rotating them to
> portrait orientation) would cut down the overall chord length
> so less head motion even at the *shorter* viewing distance.
>
> (i.e., even four 21" monitors represents ~120 degrees of arc at
> that short distance -- approaching the limits of *any* sort of
> peripheral vision... let alone central/focused vision!)
>
> (sigh)  The solution is "younger eyes"!  :<

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

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

One issue that you are running into is that a 4:1 display is very far 
off the shape of the human field of view. Monitors are wide because the 
human field of view is wider than it is tall. The original 4:3 aspect 
ratio displays worked well for matching the "active" field of view. The 
wide screens came about mostly because movies went wide to fill your 
peripheral field of view, which actually makes a lot more sense for a 
movie than for a data display. When fitting to the field of view, the 
2x2 arrangement should actually be better, the issue become that the 
break point is in the worse possible position (the center of your field 
of view), and by the time you shift your active spot to the center of 
one of the displays, the up shift becomes excessive since we aren't used 
to a lot of up-down to our field of view, we are much more used to 
expanding it horizontally to get to a 360 degree view. (Perhaps if we 
had to deal with more avian predators in the past we could look up better).