|
My preference is for both!
so my no vote is really a vote for:
d) multiple big screens 24" or larger
|
|
|
|
|
I have to agree... multiple large screens is great. Same size and resolution helps, but having 2 screens is better than one. Haven't ever really worked with more than 2.
|
|
|
|
|
Three 22 inch LCD screens seem to be just perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
As long as I didn't look at the price - yes, it sound nice 
|
|
|
|
|
Big screens are big - meaning they take too much space
Especially because I really can't stand crappy LCD colours, they give me a headache and CRT screens >17" are really far too big for a normal workspace
Bigger/multiple screens also make things slower (more pixel calculations needed etc.)
|
|
|
|
|
So agree with you.
"What if you guys are ever lost in the woods? Or trapped in a really dark place? Or if minesweeper.exe is missing from your aunt's computer?" - Jeff Atwood
|
|
|
|
|
I have 3 19" CRT screens on my desk at work and I would have a difficult time working without them. However I would really like to replace the primary monitor with a 24" LCD and rotate it so that it is in portrait mode.
John
|
|
|
|
|
It's funny how 'everyone' credits Apple with such clever designs but the fact that they still have don't have a per window menu bar means working with any large desktop area requires constant back and forth to the top left of the main display unless you have photographic memory for all the shortcut key combinations (I don't and there is a limit to the number of sticky notes one monitor can bare...).
When combined with their refusal to adopt the right mouse button fully one has to wonder if all there decisions are quite as user focused as they would have you believe. I have visions of Steve Jobs stamping his feet like a toddler shouting 'no, no, no' every time someone tries to implement when of these things.
|
|
|
|
|
JavaBear wrote: It's funny how 'everyone' credits Apple with such clever designs but the fact that they still have don't have a per window menu bar means working with any large desktop area requires constant back and forth to the top left of the main display unless you have photographic memory for all the shortcut key combinations (I don't and there is a limit to the number of sticky notes one monitor can bare...).
Yeah, because the Windows task bar doesn't do this at all. 
JavaBear wrote: When combined with their refusal to adopt the right mouse button fully one has to wonder if all there decisions are quite as user focused as they would have you believe.
You're just whining. Go buy a two button mouse or hold down CTRL. You know, those things do exist for Macs.
|
|
|
|
|
Jeremy Falcon wrote: JavaBear wrote:
It's funny how 'everyone' credits Apple with such clever designs but the fact that they still have don't have a per window menu bar means working with any large desktop area requires constant back and forth to the top left of the main display unless you have photographic memory for all the shortcut key combinations (I don't and there is a limit to the number of sticky notes one monitor can bare...).
Yeah, because the Windows task bar doesn't do this at all. [Roll eyes]
Who was talking about the Windows task bar? Isn't the Mac Dock just like the Windows task bar? [Roll eyes, smacks forehead, picks nose]
Jeremy Falcon wrote: JavaBear wrote:
When combined with their refusal to adopt the right mouse button fully one has to wonder if all there decisions are quite as user focused as they would have you believe.
You're just whining. Go buy a two button mouse or hold down CTRL. You know, those things do exist for Macs.
FYI, CTRL left click is not the same as Right click in Windows, you Mac fan boys are SOOOO smart that your IQs must have looped back around to zero.
|
|
|
|
|
JavaBear wrote: Who was talking about the Windows task bar? Isn't the Mac Dock just like the Windows task bar? [Roll eyes, smacks forehead, picks nose]
The point was, you still have to do that on Windows. So, you should try playing fair in your critique. The going back to the primary monitor isn't exclusive to Macs. This is a fairly obvious point.
JavaBear wrote: FYI, CTRL left click is not the same as Right click in Windows, you Mac fan boys are SOOOO smart that your IQs must have looped back around to zero.
It pulls up a contextual menu. How is this not like it? Unless you mean the torture and pain of pressing a key first. In which case, you should take note of my point of buying a two button Mac mouse rather than skip over it.
You PC fanboy's can only point out a mouse with one button because you don't know anything about Macs in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
Dude stop embarrassing yourself, I'm posting these messages from a Mac (and yes I have a two button mouse, and no it's not an Apple mouse).
How about you go to a Windows machine and see if you can see the difference between doing a CTRL Click and a right click.....
|
|
|
|
|
JavaBear wrote: Dude stop embarrassing yourself, I'm posting these messages from a Mac
And that means your not biased and/or know what a fair comparison is how?
JavaBear wrote: (and yes I have a two button mouse, and no it's not an Apple mouse).
And so you invalidate your own point, seeing that you can right click on a Mac and have been able to do so for years. Whining about it seems rather stupid now don't it?
JavaBear wrote: How about you go to a Windows machine and see if you can see the difference between doing a CTRL Click and a right click.....
Stop embarrassing yourself. I'm posting this from a Windows machine. Point is, you can get the functionality of it in one of two ways - both of which I mentioned - and once is exactly the same as is on a PC. So, your no right-click crap is just that.
|
|
|
|
|
Yawn... thanks for the pointless chat.
|
|
|
|
|
You're quite welcome. Enjoy not right clicking with your right mouse button.
|
|
|
|
|
I don't expect to have either option in the forseeable future.
My 19" standard aspect ratio is 'it' for now (donations cheerfully accepted).
In my vivid imaginings, however, it seems that one could enjoy a much more life-like rendition of online 'entertainment' on the larger screen - further details would cause this message to be deleted by the management (or initiate one of the most "interesting" threads in a while).
|
|
|
|
|
One little screen - 15" or smaller.
|
|
|
|
|
Nope. That's no option. That's bad working conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
Exactly!
cheers,
Chris Maunder
CodeProject.com : C++ MVP
|
|
|
|
|
I use 2 x 22" widescreens at home and at work.
|
|
|
|
|
great. do your work area related to video or graphics?
"Opinions are neither right nor wrong. I cannot change your opinion. I can, however, change what influences your opinion." - David Crow
Never mind - my own stupidity is the source of every "problem" - Mixture
cheers,
Alok Gupta
VC Forum Q&A :- I/ IV
Support CRY- Child Relief and You/xml>
|
|
|
|
|
Mostly web based applications, I generally use 1 screen for VS and the other for testing, sql and other progs like outlook etc.
|
|
|
|
|
I use three monitors; a 24 inch widescreen and two 20 inch widescreens. The 24 inch monitor (in the center) and one 20 inch monitor (on the right) are connected to a Windows Vista machine and the other 20 inch monitor (on the left) is connected to a Mac OS X machine. Both computers run Synergy to share one mouse, keyboard, and clipboard.
|
|
|
|
|
I prefer multiple screens, as long as they are the same make and size.
And it's a little irritating when Windows XP throws my cursor to the next screen when I come a little too close to the edge, or is it my display card driver doing it?
|
|
|
|
|
Hi there, first post here
I currently use and abuse with multiple desktops with yod'm3d. A bit like compiz in linux it gives me 4 desktops (and a nice spining cube  ). I consider it better than panning two, three or four monitors. Of course I could do better with a 20"+ monitor, but my 17" is still doing it's job.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
