David Thomas's Profile

I know that I'm a pain in the butt with the monitor posts on unplugged, but it really seems like you guys are giving poor advice here. In a multi-monitor setup, the three most important charactersitcis to look for in a monitor are viewing angles, ergonomic functions of the stand (unless you have an aftermarket stand), and connectivity options. When you are getting a second monitor, you want to make sure that you can position it in a way that is useful, so that you don't have to strain to incorporate it into your workflow.

None of the above options are remotely decent by this score. An LED backlight, as I've mentioned before, is nice for energy consumption and heat production, but has a middling impact on picture quality. There aren't many wide-gamut LED panels available, so if you're working outside the sRGB colorspace, you should avoid any LED backlight south of a grand; only the few models with full RGB LED backlights, like discointinued models from NEC and Samsung, provide wider gamut options. Some LED monitors also have backlight uniformity problems, as the edge-lit LED can be misconfigured to produce significant color discrepancies across the panel. CCFL backlights aren't immune to this by any stretch, but the more mature technology is generally going to provide superior results.

None of the above monitors rotate into portrait mode. With a dual display, it's often better to have one monitor in landscape and one in portrait. Many people prefer working with text and code on portrait monitors.

All of the above monitors use TN panels, with limited viewing angles. TN panels display significant color shifting and experience significant contrast reduction when viewed off angle, to the point where they can be difficult to position properly in multi-monitor configurations. Prices on IPS/PLS and PVA monitors have dropped precipitously in the past several months; it almost always going to be better to get a monitor with more image stability when setting up a multi-monitor configuration.

The dynamic contrast ratio figures you cite are nonsense; you really should avoid posting them, as it just encourages more garbage from manufacturers. The dynamic contrast functions almost never produce satisfactory results, and should be turned off. Static contrast ratios are important, but should be considered in context of viewing angles.

When it comes to connectivity, the general issue is whether you need displayport or not. Displayport works best with Macs, and is necessary for AMD video cards to drive more than two monitors. HDMI's cross compatibility with DVI makes it somewhat irrelevant, unless you are also using your monitor's audio for some reason.

The best monitors for multi-monitor setups at the moment are:

HP ZR2240w
HP ZR24W
HP ZR2440w
Dell U2312
Dell U2412
ASUS PA246Q
Samsung s24a850
NEC EX231Wp
NEC EA232WM

There are others from LG and Viewsonic, but you get the basic picture. Unless you are gaming and want either 120hz or are acutely sensitive to lag, you will be better off with one of the above monitors.

The NEC EX231Wp will use less energy, has a better contrast ratio, provides more ergonomic options, and better connectivity options than anything you've got listed. It costs around $270.

The monitor stand review you linked to is from 2006, and that model is no longer available.

Come on guys. Any of the 6850+ AMD video cards will power four monitors, and lots of companies offer products that can drive 6. There was a $200 AMD 5770 with 5 mini-displayport, each of which could drive a single monitor. I've been running three monitors off a single 5770 for a year and a half now, including a 2560x1440 monitor. Since I don't game, the card isn't even stressed.

You don't need to crossfire cards to get multiple displays -- it's actually a bad idea. 2 5770 (which have been rebranded as 6770) would run you $250, and not even break a sweat with 6 1920x1080 monitors. 2 5670s, for ~$200, would be more than sufficient.

If I still had an AMD motherboard with onboard graphics, I could use surroundview with my single 5770 and run 4 displays.

Some of the Asus 6950/6970 cards support 6 displays out of the box (look for the ones with 4 standard displayport), and there were a ton of 5870s with six mini-dp out.

The problem with most of these options is that you need displayport monitors or active DVI adapters, which can run some serious change, if you want to drive more than two monitors. Sapphire, I think, has just released a couple of AMD "flex" cards that let you use DVI.

I went with the zvox 525 sound bar -- it sounds great, and it will long outlast my current computer. It's built like a tank, but looks good. You can see some of their systems here:
http://www.zvoxaudio.com/cgi-bin/category/installationgallery

Mine's pic 16.

Big fan of the Corsair Obsidian 650D, 700D, and 800D. I have used Lian Li to date, and am happy. Will probably try out a 650D this year.

The tension is between usability and flexibility. When manufacturers focus on small form factor, sturdy, easy devices, they tend to remove the ability to upgrade and modernize the device. From putting memory on die to integrating tv/monitor controls in a base rather than the bezel, it's the simplest, and possibly only way to achieve some of the preferred designs.

I come down far on the other end of the spectrum. I build my own computers, try to keep my devices/equipment modular so that there are independent upgrade paths, and basically just make a mess of things.

The idea of a touch screen integrated in a capital purchase makes me cringe -- the processor specs for whatever's driving that thing will be obsolete in a year, are you going to replace your refrigerator, washing machine, or car on that cycle?

I want to keep the divide between electrics and electronics, but I'm obviously somewhat rare in my preferences. I can be condescending and judgy about it, but it does seem like a fairly clear case of the market having spoken (though I haven't actually done the research). An attractive, coherent computer, for instance, is going to sell regardless of whether it uses a non-ATX/ITX motherboard, nonstandard power supply, etc. Most consumers just have different preferences, at least while making their purchasing decisions, which is the point in time that matters most.

A decent 128 gig SSD can be had for ~250, while 90 and 60 gig SSDs can be had for well under $200. I've got a 60 gig as a boot drive, for windows, firefox, gimp, openoffice, etc., and it has really paid off in improved responsiveness and general user experience. I have a 1tb mechanical drive for data and backups.

On most machines, a mechanical hard drive is the tightest performance bottleneck. Seek, read and write times are slow relative to the rest of a modern system. The faster your processor, the more bang you get from removing that bottleneck.

A new generation of SSDs is expected in the next couple of weeks; Intel is revamping their line. Their older drives, including the very popular x-25 80 gig, should see some heavy discounts, while still providing an impressive performance boost. It's a good time to be in the market for a drive upgrade.

That's a very nice setup. I wonder how the experience is with the different panel technologies -- the Samsung 305t is PVA while the other two are IPS.

Any Windows 7 desktop with a modern dedicated video card will support at least two monitors out of the box. The Nvidia cards in the Mac Pro are two generations old, though the 8800 has held up quite well.

A desktop with an AMD (formerly ATI) video card from the 5000 or 6000 series will support up to 3 monitors out of the box. The only requirement is that one of the three monitors use a displayport connection.

I can't game on my system, but 2 20" 1200x1600 monitors in portrait and a 27" 2560x1440 monitor in landscape are plenty responsive for office work with only a single AMD/ATI 5770 driving them.

Glad to share, charmac. I just spent a month trying to decide on a monitor, before buying the NEC PA271W last week. Lots of agonizing and indecision led to lots of research...