Multiple monitors

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:47:26 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:

>On 8/24/2014 9:43 AM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2014 22:40:58 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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>
>>
>> Good grief!  I could never work that way.  I get pissed when my icons
>> move because each has a place and if it isn't there, searching for
>> them takes too much time.  YOY can't there be separate desktop setups
>> for each display setup?
>
>There can be.  I used a free app on my old laptop to manage the desktop 
>icons, worked great.  But that machine is dead and I don't remember the 
>name of the program.  It would remember a default for each screen 
>resolution and you could save off setups to files and recall them.  It 
>worked well under Windows Vista, but my new machine is Windows 8 and 
>there are lots of things like that which don't work so well anymore.

Such a thing would be nice but they frown on freeware at work.

>Aren't OSes supposed to be backwards compatible?

Now *that's* funny!

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 18:04:08 -0700, Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Charlie,
>
>On 8/25/2014 3:19 PM, Charles Edmondson wrote:
>> I haven't had a problem with any applications trying to come up in the
>> 'middle' of my two displays.  They basically just take up one, or the
>> other.  I have to physically reduce and move an application to have it
>> cross that center barrier.
>
>It depends on how windows views your monitors.  And, if there is
>any "helper" software involved.
>
>E.g., currently, my (identical) monitors are regarded as one seamless
>monitor that just happens to be twice as wide as the single monitors
>of which it is comprised.  So, my (Windows) taskbar *wants* to be
>3200 dots wide, etc.

I don't know how I'd even do that if I wanted to. ...and there is *no*
reason to do such a thing.


>The driver/helper software allows me to have the taskbar confined to
>a single monitor -- which is what I have done.  (allows me to operate
>with one monitor powered off if not needed -- and still have the
>system tray present/visible/accessible on the first monitor).
>
>E.g., the logon screen spans both monitors.  And, apps that want to
>instantiate "centered" would be annoying.  But, the helper software
>lets me declare where I want each app to materialize, etc.
>
>If windows wants, instead, to treat your monitors as two *independent*
>monitors, then it inherently knows about the "seam".

Hi Clifford,

On 8/26/2014 4:19 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 26/08/14 18:11, rickman wrote:
>> On 8/26/2014 2:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>
>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>
>> Every time I have done this I end up with a graphic rather than a text
>> based document. Not very desirable.
>
> You're doing it wrongly. PDF is very like postscript - there's a direct
> mapping between most features - and tools like CutePDF convert quite
> accurately - it uses ghostscript to convert the Postscript output from
> the Windows Postscript print drivers. It works a treat.

The downside of any "via print" process is that it obviously
strips much of the interactive and payload stuff out of the
document.  E.g., all the hotlinks go away, any attachments,
etc. are at risk.

I *think* programs like _PDF Unlocker_ will preserve this information
(I haven't verified it, though).

On 8/26/2014 7:19 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
> On 26/08/14 18:11, rickman wrote:
>> On 8/26/2014 2:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>
>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>
>> Every time I have done this I end up with a graphic rather than a text
>> based document.  Not very desirable.
>
> You're doing it wrongly. PDF is very like postscript - there's a direct
> mapping between most features - and tools like CutePDF convert quite
> accurately - it uses ghostscript to convert the Postscript output from
> the Windows Postscript print drivers. It works a treat.

I seem to recall the last time I tried to download a few PDF tools like 
CutePDF they were infested with Adware.  No?

-- 

Rick

On 8/26/2014 7:20 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Aug 2014 04:11:10 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/26/2014 2:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>> Hi Rick,
>>>
>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>
>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>
>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>>
>> Every time I have done this I end up with a graphic rather than a text
>> based document.  Not very desirable.
>
> PDFWriter and the Adobe PDF printer seem to work fine, 99% of the
> time.

I seem to recall that the Adobe tools won't allow you to print a PDF to 
a PDF at all.  I thought PDFWriter was an old Adobe tool, no?


>>> There are, of course, "other" methods for achieving similar goals!
>>>
>>> (something about "locks" comes to mind... :> )
>>
>> I've looked for software that lets me just turn off those pesky
>> settings, but not found any so far.
>
> Not sure it's possible.  If it's a picture to begin with, there isn't
> much you can do.

Who said it was a picture to begin with?

-- 

Rick

On 8/26/2014 7:24 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 21:42:35 -0400, rickman <gnuarm@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 8/24/2014 7:02 PM, krw@attt.bizz wrote:
>>>
>>> I prefer *not* to have it on my primary screen (and that 40 pixels is
>>> more than 10% of my laptop screen).  It might be something worth
>>> putting on an "upper".  Though, thinking about it for a minute, it
>>> might not be possible to put it at the bottom of an "upper".
>>
>> What kind of laptop are you using that is only 400 pixels wide?  I've
>> seen cell phones with more resolution.  BTW, I put the task bar on the
>> side of my screen.  I find that a more natural fit.
>
> Wide?  High (read what *you* wrote).  OK, 40 lines is >5% but the
> screen is already too small for most web sites.

That doesn't change the fact that your problem is your computer.

-- 

Rick

Hi Rick,

On 8/26/2014 4:36 PM, rickman wrote:
> On 8/26/2014 7:19 PM, Clifford Heath wrote:
>> On 26/08/14 18:11, rickman wrote:
>>> On 8/26/2014 2:12 AM, Don Y wrote:
>>>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>>>
>>>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>>>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>>>> lose other things present in the original!).
>>
>>> Every time I have done this I end up with a graphic rather than a text
>>> based document. Not very desirable.
>>
>> You're doing it wrongly. PDF is very like postscript - there's a direct
>> mapping between most features - and tools like CutePDF convert quite
>> accurately - it uses ghostscript to convert the Postscript output from
>> the Windows Postscript print drivers. It works a treat.
>
> I seem to recall the last time I tried to download a few PDF tools like
> CutePDF they were infested with Adware. No?

If you prefer to trust Uncle Billy Goates, print to "XPS Writer".  Then,
open the XPS document (in the free MS XPS Viewer) and "File | Save As"
a PDF.

You can also use the windows port of GS with a bit more hand-waving...

On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:12:49 -0700, the renowned Don Y
<this@is.not.me.com> wrote:

>Hi Rick,
>
>On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>
>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>
>Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>lose other things present in the original!).
>
>There are, of course, "other" methods for achieving similar goals!
>
>(something about "locks" comes to mind... :> )

http://freemypdf.com/


Best regards, 
Spehro Pefhany
-- 
"it's the network..."                          "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com             Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog  Info for designers:  http://www.speff.com

Hi Spehro,

On 8/26/2014 5:08 PM, Spehro Pefhany wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2014 23:12:49 -0700, the renowned Don Y
>> On 8/25/2014 6:38 PM, rickman wrote:
>>
>>> I like to markup PDFs too, but some idiotic manufacturers lock their
>>> data sheets against editing, sometimes even copying data from them.
>>
>> Often, simply printing the PDF to a (non-Adobe) "PDF Writer" and
>> using the resulting PDF gives you what you want (though you can
>> lose other things present in the original!).
>>
>> There are, of course, "other" methods for achieving similar goals!
>>
>> (something about "locks" comes to mind... :>  )
>
> http://freemypdf.com/

"YOU MAY NOT USE THIS SERVICE FOR ILLEGAL PURPOSES"  <grin>

I'm not real keen on letting some third party know which
"locked documents" I am trying to access...

In comp.arch.embedded Don Y <this@is.not.me.com> wrote:
> 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!)

I'm using a 40" 4K (well, UHD 3840x2160) TV for doing CAD.  It's great - I
can have a CAD app open, plus a datasheet, plus a browser window, plus a
terminal, all on the same screen.  It's like 2x2 of full-HD monitors without
the bezels.  CAD apps are often terrible for not doing zoom properly - they
do it in chunks, and if you zoom out one chunk the fine grid disappears -
really awkward when you're trying to align things.  At 40" UHD the pixel
density is about the same as the 30" 2560x1600 I had previously, just with
more real estate - which makes seeing the detail so much easier.

UHD TVs are about $500/GBP500 now, so if you do have to spend anything on
kit I recommend having a look.

Downsides are: this particular TV only does HDMI 2.0 so I'm currently
running it at 30Hz 4:2:2 chroma over a HDMI 1.4 link - that makes the colour
rendering a bit fuzzy.  I don't care about 30Hz as I don't play games or
watch videos on it.  I'm hoping better GPUs will turn up later in the year
to drive it properly.  Some of the other models (eg there's a 39" Seiki for
$339 on Amazon US) have Displayport which works better with some graphics
cards.  And don't forgot to budget for a GPU if yours can't cope.

Theo