Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: SteveZ on December 05, 2008, 09:03:43 pm
-
I was planning on buying two new monitors and start using a dual monitor system for photo editing until someone suggested I go with one large 30" monitor instead. One good quality larger monitor would cost less than 2 good quality smaller monitors and and I'd save a bit of money by not needing a video card with dual output. Plus my desktop workspace would be less crowded to. Why do many photographers use two monitors and what are the advantages of using a dual system instead of one?
-
For still photographers, one view is that you can use a very high quality monitor for your image view, then put the boring dialog boxes, tool boxes, etc. on a cheap monitor off to the side, possibly reusing your old monitor. Perhaps one high end, medium size monitor with one cheap monitor is less of an expense than a single, big, high quality monitor.
For film makers, several identical side by side monitors gives you a longer horizontal timeline.
For equipment hounds, several monitors just looks cool.
-
For equipment hounds, several monitors just looks cool.
So other than looking "cool" there are no real benefits?
-
By putting the image on one monitor and the tool palettes (and your IM client and your webcam and your email, etc.) on the other, you can isolate the image and perhaps be less distracted by all the busy chrome that clutters up your screen.
-
As Bill and Paul said, it is really convenient having the photo on the better monitor and the tools on the cheaper. My main monitor is slightly larger than my max. print size and I get an unobstructed view of the image. In Lightroom you can have the develop module open on the main monitor, and a grid view open on the other to keep track of where you are (no film strip cluttering up the screen), or another version of the same image open for comparison.
I get a lot of emails referring to web sites, so I have the emails on one side and the open web browser on the other. I also often have someone working on images on one screen from their laptop, while I'm on the other screen from my desktop. If I need access to the other screen, I just press the select button on the screen and I'm there. And in general, my cheaper screen is where I dump articles, notes and other general clutter and I often want access to this while having a program open on the other screen. Very handy. Cheers, David
-
I was planning on buying two new monitors and start using a dual monitor system for photo editing until someone suggested I go with one large 30" monitor instead. One good quality larger monitor would cost less than 2 good quality smaller monitors and and I'd save a bit of money by not needing a video card with dual output. Plus my desktop workspace would be less crowded to. Why do many photographers use two monitors and what are the advantages of using a dual system instead of one?
There are some advantages to a single 30" monitor but price is not one of them. A photo quality 30 is going to be in the 2K (USD) and you will need a more expensive video card (you still need the dual output and support for screen resolution higher than 1920x1200). You can probably get a a pair of 24" monitors and wind up with more screen space for less money.
Tom
ps My dream setup is an NEC 30" and NEC 26" driven by a pair of NVidia 280 video cards
-
You simply cannot have too much screen real estate. I'd rather have have two 24" than a single 30". You can do more work easier and quicker with more screens - I even have a MacBook with a second screen sitting beside my PC for a total of 4 screens.
-
Why do many photographers use two monitors and what are the advantages of using a dual system instead of one?
Hello Steve,
Its so much easier to use Photoshop, Lightroom, etc. where the image can be on the main monitor and the palletes on the other monitor. The less obvious is that many of us rarely do only thing at a time. So.... with your main monitor having your image you can also have a browser open in the other monitor, watch a video tutorial there, check your email, chat on IM, etc.
This wasn't as appealing before we gained the processing power of dual and quad cores and today's video cards.
-
By putting the image on one monitor and the tool palettes (and your IM client and your webcam and your email, etc.) on the other, you can isolate the image and perhaps be less distracted by all the busy chrome that clutters up your screen.
And you can turn off the secondary monitor when performing critical color evaluations on the main screen.
Peter
-
I love using dual monitors, much more efficient that a single large monitor. On a PC that is.
Macs sadly are far less efficient with multimonitor setups as the menu is only on one screen, not the one where you may have say your browser open. Plus, you cannot use the entire desktop as full screen, as 'full' screen mode on Macs fills a single monitor only, whereas on a PC, you can have progs fill a single monitor or span entire desktop. This matters as some programmes work well stretched out across two monitors and some are much better on just the one screen. Choice is a good thing, but annoyingly appears to be a forbidden word at Apple. YOU WILL USE GLOSSY MONITORS!!!!! .....for example.
-
Back in CRT days, I could not function without two monitors. Once I switched to larger screen LCDs, I found less need for two. Currently, my main screen is 26" and I rarely feel a need to turn on the second LCD.
There are times when I love a two-screen set-up. Those times are typically when I'm multi-tasking and using several programs at one time (especially for web design).
On the wider LCD screens, it makes less sense (at least to me) to put your tools on another monitor. The back and forth of the cursor simply takes too long for my liking and slows up my workflow. If I hire outside assistance, chances are they have no experience working on two monitors and I've seen where the set-up can throw them off balance.
Sometimes, in Photoshop, I'm working from four versions of the same image. Here, it's more enjoyable to work with two monitors because it easier to keep track of your versions. But I have to admit, with the wider real estate of a single LCD, finding the four versions is not as painful as it was on a single CRT. Therefore, if money and desk space matter to you, one larger LCD screen ought to please you plenty.
-
There are times when I love a two-screen set-up. Those times are typically when I'm multi-tasking and using several programs at one time (especially for web design).
And as multitasking is the norm.......
Very, very few people have just the one programme open.
-
Very, very few people have just the one programme open.
Maybe that's true for the unenlightened. But every Photoshop user in my circle knows that Photoshop is far more stable and efficient if no other programs are running open.
-
I love using dual monitors, much more efficient that a single large monitor. On a PC that is.
Macs sadly are far less efficient with multimonitor setups as the menu is only on one screen, not the one where you may have say your browser open. Plus, you cannot use the entire desktop as full screen, as 'full' screen mode on Macs fills a single monitor only, whereas on a PC, you can have progs fill a single monitor or span entire desktop. This matters as some programmes work well stretched out across two monitors and some are much better on just the one screen. Choice is a good thing, but annoyingly appears to be a forbidden word at Apple. YOU WILL USE GLOSSY MONITORS!!!!! .....for example.
This statement is just incorrect. Apparently jjj is not familiar with Mac OSX which does support multiple monitors in both "mirror mode" as well as "extended desktop". The menu bar in extended desktop mode can be placed on either monitor. Stretching the menu bar across both monitors accomplishes nothing except distorting the screen resolution.
The display cards included in the MacPro and MacBook Pro can support two 30" monitors with no problem.
I own both the MacBook Pro and MacPro. My current setup is a 20" Apple Cinema Display that I use for my menus and a 20" Wacom Cintiq that functions as my editing monitor. Each monitor is calibrated separately which is a feat that Windows has not yet mastered.
-
my experience is that dual is better than single and bigger is even more better. Just can't go back from a 30 inch to a 24 inch. A bigger monitor made task such as dust removal much more efficient.
My Combination is a Dell 30 inch with another 20inch ( vertical orientation) for tools.
-
This statement is just incorrect. Apparently jjj is not familiar with Mac OSX which does support multiple monitors in both "mirror mode" as well as "extended desktop". The menu bar in extended desktop mode can be placed on either monitor. Stretching the menu bar across both monitors accomplishes nothing except distorting the screen resolution.
Actually I was correct, you simply misread post or did not understand what I was talking about. I know how to use OSX with dual monitors and more importantly, I also know how to use Windows with dual monitors and guess what? You get more options and ease of use with Windows. I did not say OSX couldn't do multiple monitors, just that it wasn't very good.
I like to use programmes in full screen mode to reduce clutter, with OSX that means filling one screen only. On a PC that means filling one screen or across entire desktop depending on how you set your preferences, which is possible to do on a programme by programme level. How it is done depends on which graphics card you are using. You can even assign parts of a screen to limit programmes if you so wish, again depending on graphics card.
Mirror mode is completely pointless/irrelevant for dual monitor workflow, though it is very handy for demostrations where you work on your laptop and the audience see a projected version.
Extended desktop on a Mac results in wasted space/blank area on the monitor where there is no menu bar and when you manually drag a programme to [almost] fit entire desktop. The full screen mode usually fills just the single screen, not the desktop, full screen mode on a PC can fill entire desktop, not half or most of it.
With multiple displays and OSX, the problem is that your menu bar can end up nowhere near your programme. Specifically when using programmes on the monitor without the menu bar. This results in pointless mousing and potential confusion due to the complete disassociation of menu and programme window and the fact that the only indication of the live programme being used is sometimes the tiny bit of plain text on menu bar. Which is a very small area on a large extended desktop. OSX can be way too subtle at times, especially when different programmes can also look so alike. The Windows method of attaching Menu to programme, not fixed to top of a single monitor, is way superior when using multiple monitors. Can imagine how awful using OSX would be with say 6 screens and having to always go back to one for any menu options?
http://www.digitaltigers.com/images/image.gif (http://www.digitaltigers.com/images/image.gif) And don't make pointless comments about how that is not how you would use multiple monitors or the programmes being displayed as it is just an example of how you could use it.
OSX is far more painful to use than Windows with multiple apps on multiple monitors. The justification for the fixed menu bar that people spout regarding Apple's decision, is better adherence to Fitt's law. Which sadly falls down as soon as you start to use multiple monitors. Plus it completely fails to take into account the ease of moving mouse a little way to hit menu as opposed to moving it a long to hit menu. Plus this concept was postulated in 1954 long before the GUIs we use were even though of. And theories don't always work as expected, especially with workflow.
Each monitor is calibrated separately which is a feat that Windows has not yet mastered.
I recently calibrated both monitors individually on the Mac and ended up with 2 monitors with very different colours. The 'solution' from Colour Confidence was to use the profile of the more correct monitor for the other, so you end up with monitors with identical profiles and in fact no different from windows.
I'm not blaming OSX for this, just pointing out that things don't always work as claimed.
-
Maybe that's true for the unenlightened. But every Photoshop user in my circle knows that Photoshop is far more stable and efficient if no other programs are running open.
And everyone who really knows how to really use PS and can actually see the light, doesn't use it on it's own I would say. Bridge/ACR or LR are an essential part of an efficient PS workflow [for photography], unless you work on a very, very small no. of files. Like one!
Many, many years ago multitasking was a bit more fraught, particularly if say using non-scsi CD writers, when writing to CDs was still a new thing. But those days are long gone, especially if using multiprocessor machines.
As for PS's stability, I cannot even remember when it last crashed/locked up even when testing beta versions. On Mac or PC.
Also have you never heard of the Adobe Creative Suite? It's a large package of applications that integrate very well together for a far more efficient workflow, but usually only if the applications are actually open! p.s. PS is one of them. You should try enlightening yourself.
-
With multiple displays and OSX, the problem is that your menu bar can end up nowhere near your programme. Specifically when using programmes on the monitor without the menu bar. This results in pointless mousing and potential confusion due to the complete disassociation of menu and programme window and the fact that the only indication of the live programme being used is sometimes the tiny bit of plain text on menu bar. Which is a very small area on a large extended desktop. OSX can be way too subtle at times, especially when different programmes can also look so alike. The Windows method of attaching Menu to programme, not fixed to top of a single monitor, is way superior when using multiple monitors. Can imagine how awful using OSX would be with say 6 screens and having to always go back to one for any menu options?
http://www.digitaltigers.com/images/image.gif (http://www.digitaltigers.com/images/image.gif) And don't make pointless comments about how that is not how you would use multiple monitors or the programmes being displayed as it is just an example of how you could use it.
OSX is far more painful to use than Windows with multiple apps on multiple monitors. The justification for the fixed menu bar that people spout regarding Apple's decision, is better adherence to Fitt's law. Which sadly falls down as soon as you start to use multiple monitors. Plus it completely fails to take into account the ease of moving mouse a little way to hit menu as opposed to moving it a long to hit menu. Plus this concept was postulated in 1954 long before the GUIs we use were even though of. And theories don't always work as expected, especially with workflow.
Both your "logic" and your link are flawed. As a graphic professional I often use keyboard shortcuts which negate your argument for having to move the mouse cursor waaaaay over to the other monitor. Most graphic applications allow you to position your tool panels on either monitor. Having one monitor dedicated to the image you are working on is the ideal situation. Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture are all configured for a dual monitor system for that purpose. The platform you use is irrelevant.
-
Each monitor is calibrated separately which is a feat that Windows has not yet mastered.
You'd better come around to my place and explain that to my Windows Vista 64 system then, 'caues it's quite happily ignorant of that fact and has both my Eizo's calibrated separately.
-
You'd better come around to my place and explain that to my Windows Vista 64 system then, 'caues it's quite happily ignorant of that fact and has both my Eizo's calibrated separately.
Good for you! Now you can explain it to these people who have all experienced the "Vista monitor calibration problem".
http://www.jpdodelphoto.com/blog/?p=369 (http://www.jpdodelphoto.com/blog/?p=369)
http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft...tion-issue.aspx (http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft-public-windows-vista-hardware-devices/183795-monitor-calibration.htmlhttp://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/31554290/monitor-calibration-issue.aspx)
http://www.realgeek.com/forums/monitor-cal...ues-373488.html (http://www.realgeek.com/forums/monitor-calibration-issues-373488.html)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/235826-4...bration-problem (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/235826-44-vista-monitor-calibration-problem)
-
Good for you! Now you can explain it to these people who have all experienced the "Vista monitor calibration problem".
http://www.jpdodelphoto.com/blog/?p=369 (http://www.jpdodelphoto.com/blog/?p=369)
http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft...tion-issue.aspx (http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft-public-windows-vista-hardware-devices/183795-monitor-calibration.htmlhttp://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/31554290/monitor-calibration-issue.aspx)
http://www.realgeek.com/forums/monitor-cal...ues-373488.html (http://www.realgeek.com/forums/monitor-calibration-issues-373488.html)
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/235826-4...bration-problem (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/235826-44-vista-monitor-calibration-problem)
Jerry there is a huge difference between "windows not being able to do it" and "some people experience a problem which can be fixed".
Your very first link explains how to deal with the problem *if* you experience it. Personally, my machine doesn't go into sleep mode so that aspect is never a problem and the first issue (GPU related software being loaded that isn't needed) is simply resolved *if* it's causing you a problem.
The bottom line is that Vista can run separate calibration on multiple monitors. It's accurate to say that some people have problems, but it's completely wrong to say that it can't be done.
-
Both your "logic" and your link are flawed. As a graphic professional I often use keyboard shortcuts which negate your argument for having to move the mouse cursor waaaaay over to the other monitor. Most graphic applications allow you to position your tool panels on either monitor. Having one monitor dedicated to the image you are working on is the ideal situation. Photoshop, Lightroom and Aperture are all configured for a dual monitor system for that purpose. The platform you use is irrelevant.
You still do not get it obviously. Windows handles the situation better and far more elegantly with more options.
And your 'solutions' are useless, as firstly I only use menus when I don't know the shortcuts or more likely there aren't any as is very often the case. Secondly some programmes work better across two monitors as opposed to filling one and having tools on other, in fact not all programmes even have tools to place elsewhere. You are the one who ignores any inconvienient facts and uses very iffy logic based on poor understanding of the issue.
Maybe you have limited needs and even more limited experience of using a better way of handling multiple monitors.
-
Good for you! Now you can explain it to these people who have all experienced the "Vista monitor calibration problem".
<snip links>
I like how you carefully ignore my mentioning above of problems with dual monitor calibration in OSX.
You come across as an Apple apologist who doesn't know very much about Windows and how it works or OSX works for that matter. Yet you still ignorantly and innacurately slag Windows off.
As flawed as MS stuff can be, they do some things better than Apple. Heresy to Macolytes, but for those with open minds, it's not a problem.
-
Good for you! Now you can explain it to these people who have all experienced the "Vista monitor calibration problem".
http://www.jpdodelphoto.com/blog/?p=369 (http://www.jpdodelphoto.com/blog/?p=369)
This describes a loss of profile with Vista coming out of sleep mode - not specific to dual displays at all. The article correctly identifies issues with 3rd party display drivers, but also indicates the availability of a patch dated 05/31/2008.
http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft...tion-issue.aspx (http://www.vistaheads.com/forums/microsoft-public-windows-vista-hardware-devices/183795-monitor-calibration.htmlhttp://www.eggheadcafe.com/software/aspnet/31554290/monitor-calibration-issue.aspx)
http://www.realgeek.com/forums/monitor-cal...ues-373488.html (http://www.realgeek.com/forums/monitor-calibration-issues-373488.html)
Both the above links actually refer to the same discussion thread, not separate issues at all. Issue described is easily resolved by applying the May 21 patch described above. Also nothing to do with dual displays per se . . .
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/235826-4...bration-problem (http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/235826-44-vista-monitor-calibration-problem)
This describes someone attempting to install an un-signed driver onto a Vista 64 platform. After succesfully creating a profile, the OP asks how to automatically load the profile - very easilly done in either Vista (or server 2008) platform:
Control Panel | Display Settings | Avanced Settings... button | Color Managment Tab | Color Mangement Button
(http://imagesbymurray.com/ll-images/vista-clr-mgmt.jpg)
A fairly generic machine - in the list of color aware devices, you can clearly see 2 displays, each of which can be assigned any available color profile . . . .
Again the post is not dual display specific. Other than to point out the fact you don't particularly care for and are quite possibly completely unfamiliar with Vista, what is your point?
I also run dual displays, separately color managed and have been since XP SP2 . . . .
-
This must be gang up on the Mac user day. I made my initial comment in this thread to put aside false information being spewed by an obvious Mac hater.
Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro dual boot with Vista 64bit ultimate (which they run natively). So yes, I do have experience with both systems and find that OSX implements dual monitors flawlessly.
There are known issues with Vista and color management including the failure to retain icc monitor profiles. This is well documented. There is also plenty of documentation about Vista users experiencing difficulty with dual monitors.
http://www.besttechie.net/2007/05/20/dual-...d-your-desktop/ (http://www.besttechie.net/2007/05/20/dual-monitors-in-vista-extend-your-desktop/)
http://www.vistax64.com/graphic-cards/1515...-vista-x64.html (http://www.vistax64.com/graphic-cards/151511-8400gs-dual-displays-vista-x64.html)
http://www.driverheaven.net/windows-vista-...tors-vista.html (http://www.driverheaven.net/windows-vista-forum/119806-dual-monitors-vista.html)
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums.../m/290008994931 (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/290008994931)
http://www.techsupportforum.com/microsoft-...itor-vista.html (http://www.techsupportforum.com/microsoft-support/windows-vista-support/226562-dual-monitor-vista.html)
Again, my point is that OSX has a better dual monitor implementation than Vista.
-
Again, my point is that OSX has a better dual monitor implementation than Vista.
Then your point is wrong.
Vista implements dual (or more) monitors with calibration without problem. The fact that some users have issues is a reflection of individual issues those users are having, just as examples of OS X issues are related to individual cases because OS X also handles multiple monitor calibration just fine.
You are wrong, Jerry. Simple. It's not about ganging up on you - I'd have corrected anyone who made such a claim.
-
Then your point is wrong.
Vista implements dual (or more) monitors with calibration without problem. The fact that some users have issues is a reflection of individual issues those users are having, just as examples of OS X issues are related to individual cases because OS X also handles multiple monitor calibration just fine.
You are wrong, Jerry. Simple. It's not about ganging up on you - I'd have corrected anyone who made such a claim.
Just another case of PC elitism. I have pointed out many instances of problems with Vista and dual monitor setup as well as calibration issues. Not one person has cited any similar examples with the Mac and OSX.
........or should we just take your word for gospel?
-
Just another case of PC elitism. I have pointed out many instances of problems with Vista and dual monitor setup as well as calibration issues. Not one person has cited any similar examples with the Mac and OSX.
........or should we just take your word for gospel?
I don't want to gand up on you (or anyone), but dual monitors, each with its own profile, are flawlessly loaded by Vista 64 or Vista 32.
Each of us on this board have more experience with either Macs or PCs. Almost never with both. Sounds like yours is with Mac.
It is kind of a silly discussion as dual monitors is a solved issue behind us all.
I don't know how an operating system can make anyone elite. The OS should be invisible, unlike our pictures.
It is really a great time for photographers. The technology is fantastic.
Best of luck to everyone.
-
This must be gang up on the Mac user day. I made my initial comment in this thread to put aside false information being spewed by an obvious Mac hater.
Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro dual boot with Vista 64bit ultimate (which they run natively). So yes, I do have experience with both systems and find that OSX implements dual monitors flawlessly.
There are known issues with Vista and color management including the failure to retain icc monitor profiles. This is well documented. There is also plenty of documentation about Vista users experiencing difficulty with dual monitors.
http://www.besttechie.net/2007/05/20/dual-...d-your-desktop/ (http://www.besttechie.net/2007/05/20/dual-monitors-in-vista-extend-your-desktop/)
http://www.vistax64.com/graphic-cards/1515...-vista-x64.html (http://www.vistax64.com/graphic-cards/151511-8400gs-dual-displays-vista-x64.html)
http://www.driverheaven.net/windows-vista-...tors-vista.html (http://www.driverheaven.net/windows-vista-forum/119806-dual-monitors-vista.html)
http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums.../m/290008994931 (http://episteme.arstechnica.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/99609816/m/290008994931)
http://www.techsupportforum.com/microsoft-...itor-vista.html (http://www.techsupportforum.com/microsoft-support/windows-vista-support/226562-dual-monitor-vista.html)
Again, my point is that OSX has a better dual monitor implementation than Vista.
I'm *not* ganging up on Macs, however I am pointing out false, misleading and incorrect information. You mention in an earlier post that Dual Display support is "something that Windows has yet to figure out" which is simply not true.
In another post you provide a series of links describing the "problems that evryone is having with Vista" . . . . If you had bothered to actually read any of them, you would have found what I did; issues asked and answered.
The first of your new set of links, I suppose is to impress upon all of us, the "uselessness of even attempting dual displays on Vista . . ." Did you know the first is actually a review of Ultramon? It's an add-in for Windows XP and now Vista that offer enhancements to dual display support, but actually does nothing in regard to color profiles. Definately not required.
I'm perfectly willing to agree that it is *your opinion* that Dual display support is "better on a Mac", however, I would disagree with that assesment and counter with *my* opinion that the two platforms' approach are simply different. Couching your opinions as "facts" is what I object to, not your chosen platform
-
This must be gang up on the Mac user day. I made my initial comment in this thread to put aside false information being spewed by an obvious Mac hater.
I'm a Mac user and Mac realist actually, I am certainly not a brainwashed fawning Macolyte, spouting innacurate and biased misinformation, like you appear to be doing.
I repeat again in the hope you may actually understand. I was not talking about profiling of dual monitors [which other people have already corrected you on], I was commenting on how the two OSs implement the GUI on multiple monitors.
Both my MacPro and MacBook Pro dual boot with Vista 64bit ultimate (which they run natively). So yes, I do have experience with both systems and find that OSX implements dual monitors flawlessly.
Again, my point is that OSX has a better dual monitor implementation than Vista.
No it has't, XP and presumably Vista can do everthing OSX can and do more on top of that as Windows has more UI options with regard to multiple monitors. Heck, you cannot even fill the full desktop with a single programme in OSX. Not to mention the tedious extra mousing needed to access the single menu bar, which as someone who has suffered from RSI, this is not just poor ergomics, but potentially a literal pain in the wrist.
You have offered zero evidence as to how OSX implements multiple monitors better, other than to say it just is and reference links which you obviously hadn't read/understood.
OSX certainly does some things better than Windows. Very clumsy window [re]sizing and multiple monitors however, is one area where it simply isn't as good.
BTW, Windows in BootCamp is not necessarily the same as Windows on a PC as not everything works flawlessly, particularly on the graphics side.
-
It is kind of a silly discussion as dual monitors is a solved issue behind us all.
Sadly that's not the case. I find multiple monitor implementation on the Mac UI, clumsy and unergonomic.
-
BTW, Windows in BootCamp is not necessarily the same as Windows on a PC as not everything works flawlessly, particularly on the graphics side.
Windows does not run IN BootCamp and yes it is the same as running it on a PC. BootCamp is not emulation software, it preps the hard drive for Windows installation on a dual boot system, it is not needed for running Windows. Windows can be installed without Bootcamp on a MacPro.
Stick to the topics you actually know something about.
-
You mention in an earlier post that Dual Display support is "something that Windows has yet to figure out" which is simply not true.
Here you go Murray:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=6397 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6397)
-
Here you go Murray:
http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forum...read.php?t=6397 (http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6397)
Yet again, the issue in this thread is addressed by the May 21st patch I referred to above
"Ok, I visited the Photokina in Cologne yesterday and popped by the Microsoft stand to get an answer straight from the horse's mouth It took some asking around to find a person who knew a person who could give an authoritative answer, but to cut a long story short: yes, it's been solved as part of a post-SP1 patch "
-
Windows does not run IN BootCamp and yes it is the same as running it on a PC. BootCamp is not emulation software, it preps the hard drive for Windows installation on a dual boot system, it is not needed for running Windows. Windows can be installed without Bootcamp on a MacPro.
Stick to the topics you actually know something about.
I am, unlike yourself. I know Bootcamp is not emulation, don't assume I don't, it only makes you look foolish. People use in/via/with/using interchangeably when describing Windows running natively on a Mac with BootCamp.
I have installed Windows using Bootcamp on my MacPro and also with Parallels in OSX. Neither work that fully on the graphics side it has to be said and with Bootcamp it has problems simply getting going, so I don't use it as of yet.
Bootcamp is just an easy way of setting up Windows on the Mac, no point in not using it and even if you don't, you still need the BootCamp drivers to get Windows operational. So all you are doing is not running OSX to make the partition and then using Bootcamp Windows drivers.
I see you've still not come out with any reasons as to why OSX is better than Windows for dual monitors.
Other than yet another link which proves nothing.
I notice that
SNAPSHOT OF CAT REMOVED [as trying to make some peace on this this fractious thread was apparently a very bad thing.]
looks very much like one of mine
(http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3222/2956273458_e70b207707_o.jpg)
who is currently curled up next to me, try to suck heat out of me and the laptop.
-
Just another case of PC elitism. I have pointed out many instances of problems with Vista and dual monitor setup as well as calibration issues. Not one person has cited any similar examples with the Mac and OSX.
........or should we just take your word for gospel?
PC elitism? Hardly. Did you know I just made recommendations to my boss to purchase two high-end MacPros? They will be higher spec than any of the PCs we use at work - yes, we use both. Half my colleagues have Macbook Pros.
Yes, I'm a PC guy, but I use and support Macs. I will be the first to tell you that I am not an expert on Macs, but when it comes to PCs I'm pretty solid. I've been using personal computers since the Z-80 based machines, and used an Apple long before a PC. Other brands include Atari, Wizard, BBC and Amiga (and probably some I've forgotten). I use whatever tools are available to me.
The instances of problems you have pointed out have either been resolved through updates or are the result of 3rd party software causing issues or are user induced problems. That we haven't cited problems with color calibration on Macs with dual monitors has NOTHING to do with whether Vista performs this task correctly or not.
As it happens, a colleague at work (very much a Mac guy - he is our Mac expert) noted that running 3 displays on his MacPro at home across 3 GPUs was a real problem. For reference, it was 2 x Eizo CG 24" and a Cinteq unit (don't know exact specs). He found that dropping to 2 GPUs was completely stable. That he had problems with fairly unusual setup isn't something that I'm going to cite as evidence that Macs can't handle graphics...
So, again, Jerry. You are wrong. Windows handles dual monitor display and calibration just fine and no amount of you covering your ears and shouting "no it doesn't" is going to change that fact.
-
I see you've still not come out with any reasons as to why OSX is better than Windows for dual monitors.
Other than yet another link which proves nothing.
Your stated "main" reason why you feel Windows dual monitor support is superior, is that you can stretch the full screen across both monitors (including the task bar). This essentially makes it a single monitor and defeats the purpose of a dual monitor setup.
You have also posted one of my copyrighted images in this forum without my consent. I respectfully request that you remove it.
-
You guys are a lot of fun.
Do we have an executive summary yet? I'm guessing you can do this stuff with either system just fine.
-
It is not a good idea to use someone else's image without attribution or permission - no matter that it is within a thread. Please remove the image and acknowledge.
-
Your stated "main" reason why you feel Windows dual monitor support is superior, is that you can stretch the full screen across both monitors (including the task bar). This essentially makes it a single monitor and defeats the purpose of a dual monitor setup.
No it doesn't, it's not stretch across two screens, that's what a Mac does, on a PC it's fill entire desktop with a full or normal screen mode of app, with no wasted gaps. Task bar can go on one monitor or both, I have the choice. Programmes can do full screen on one or across both, I have the choice. Some programmes work better across a wide desktop - those with timelines for example, some work much better on just one - a web browser for example. By using two or more monitors you get the best of both worlds as you have a choice of how to use things. Choice - an area where PCs excel and Macs fall very short.
I would never use just a single large monitor, as programmes such as web browsers do not work well on say a 30" screen. When I buy a 30", it will go between my current two monitors turned vertically.
You have also posted one of my copyrighted images in this forum without my consent. I respectfully request that you remove it.
I posted a picture of one of your cats and one of mine which looked quite similar to yours in an attempt to lighten tone of thread. A feline olive branch I guess. You are obviously not interested in that either. I will remove your snapshot, but you are obviously as humourless as you are incapapble of admitting you simply do not understand how PCs deal with dual monitors differently from Macs.
It's not a crime to admit you do not know everything. People won't think less of you, unlike when you insist on a viewpoint regardless of all the facts that contradict your stance.
-
It is not a good idea to use someone else's image without attribution or permission - no matter that it is within a thread. Please remove the image and acknowledge.
It was to defuse thread, sorry for trying to make a peaceful gesture. I won't bother again if that OK with you?
-
You guys are a lot of fun.
Glad to be able to brighten your dark Winter days, assuming you are someway North of Equator, as with your alias you may be enjoying Summer.
Do we have an executive summary yet?
Yup Macs are the spawn of the Devil and PCs are the saviour of Mankind, or was it the other way round, I can never remember?
I'm guessing you can do this stuff with either system just fine.
Uh, that's the sticking point , you cannot. One is markedly better than the other.
I use both systems a lot and Macs suck compared to PCs when using multiple monitors.
PCs suck in different ways, but that's another thread or five.
-
an attempt to lighten tone of thread
Bitchy men are such a turn off. If one lightens his "tone" before he clicks "reply," the board could be spared a bitch-fest by arrogant and sarcastic know-it-alls.
-
Bitchy men are such a turn off.
Not necessarily. I'm sure in some places they are quite the catch.
If one lightens his "tone" before he clicks "reply," the board could be spared a bitch-fest by arrogant and sarcastic know-it-alls.
Ever come across the concept of irony?
-
Gentlenen - time to move on. Topic closed