Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mishedlo who wrote (21082)	1/11/2005 7:45:18 PM
From: Sultan	Respond to of 116555

I think you are putting the monitor before the horse, so to speak.. To run dual monitor (2 -4 monitors is the common setup), you need a video card that can handle multiple monitors.. Software is not an issue.. Win 2000 or XP will handle multiple monitors.. My setup, 2 monitors (1 is 17" Digital LCD (Samsung) and 2 is 17" CRT (Viewsonic) and is driven by a Matrox G550 video card).. there are many choices out there in terms of video cards but I selected Matrox about 2 years ago since I did not want gaming etc. and reliability and basic business oriented display was what I focussed on.. Now each video cards will have it's strengths and weaknesses and you will get a combination of both digital output or 1 digital 1 analogue as a choice.. Flat Panel can either be digital or analogue and video card prices by now are I am sure pretty low so you should be able to pick one up around 50 bucks or so .. If you do not want to replace your existing video card then you can I think add a separate video card to your existing set up but I have not really looked into it closely.. You can visit Computer Learning thread here on SI and do a search on multiple monitors or dual monitors and will see some posts or google the same and will see fair number of sites with pretty good explanation of how to go about it.. google.ca Finally, along with what ever you end up doing, I would up the RAM from 256 to 512 MB minimum since you will find response will improve markedly.. Nothing like slow machine to dim your multiple-monitor-enthusiasm..

To: mishedlo who wrote (21082)	1/11/2005 11:00:09 PM
From: Vitalsigns	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 116555

Mish , First off , to run 2 monitors you need 2 video cards , or 1 dual head video cards . I used to run Matrox video cards but are expensive for whats available now . I now run the Nvdia Dual head 128mb Card and love em dearly ,cheap and excellent performance . My setup is 4 flat screens KDS 17 " monitors on a custom spec built workstation , 3.0 Mhz clock speed AMD chip 1.5 Gig Ram on Win XP . I believe win 2000 does not clear the cache as effectively and is essentially the Win NT platform whereas Win XP Pro has some great features but unless you are running some major performance hogs like Metastock and Visual trader realtime you probably won't notice much difference . I would go flat screen if you can , they are cheap now and don't flicker , better for the eyes in the long run . Also get more Ram , it does make a huge difference . Once you go Multi screen you'll never go back . I run a total of 6 screens networked on 2 computers , 2 on 1 system , 4 monitors on the other (my primary). Anyways , the KDS Flat Screens were inexpensive and are analog , work just great for me . The Video card will handle both digital or analog screens and the card is cheap . Most cards only have 8mb or 24 mb 's but the NVdia card has 128 mb which makes a difference . Also I believe the new card has 256 mb chips on them now . Bottom line , better to have a video card that performs and as much Ram as the system can handle , I believe the 330 system may only take 512 Mb Ram on the board but if it can take more the Win 2000 will be able to accept and use up to 800 mb. You can get this done fairly easily but for your next system visit your local computer store , Dell systems are pretty well stuck with what you can do with them , they use some proprietary parts that forces you to only buy their components in some cases and hard to expand the system . These days their service is crap and would not recommend a new system from Dell for anything other than doing kids homework or a paper weight LOL! You can now build a system 3 times more powerful and efficient from your local guy than what the majors can offer . Stay away from boxed systems from Staples and those types of stores if you want performance and be able to expand later.

To: mishedlo who wrote (21082)	1/11/2005 11:57:26 PM
From: RealMuLan	Respond to of 116555

why you still want CRT? A little bit > $200 will buy you a decent 17" LCD. NEC MultiSync LCD1735 17" LCD Monitor staples.com $349.98+tax, shipped free $90 rebate (Original UPC - Exp 1/15/05) techbargains.pricegrabber.com $50 Staples Easy rebate (Online submit, no UPC - Exp 1/16) stapleseasyrebates.com For adding USB/Firewire on a older computer, buy a PCI card like this, usbgear.com

To: mishedlo who wrote (21082)	1/12/2005 4:12:47 AM
From: jacquerie1358	Respond to of 116555

Mixing LCD & CRT may present a problem, depending on your video card, (refresh rates), monitor(pixel size, resolution i.e. 1024x1028, etc.). All said, you may just need a video Y-cable to add an additional monitor to your current PC. Extracted from Consumers Report June of 04. "As a class, the LCD monitors in the top Ratings group scored higher than the CRT monitors. The LCDs are also significantly lighter and less space-hungry than CRTs, a consideration for anyone with limited space for a desktop computer. The CRTs generally performed well and are well suited for those whose budget is more limited than their desk space. For Macintosh users: 1 Apple $700 This monitor consistently delivers outstanding image quality. But its expensive for a 17-inch LCD monitor and works only with Macintosh computers. To save desk space: 14 Dell E172FP $450 18 CTX S700B $420 These 17-inch LCDs are of similar overall quality, very attractively priced, and take up far less desk space than a CRT of comparable viewable image size. For a feature-laden LCD: 3 Dell 1703FP $530 6 Dell 1901FP $680 The Dell (3) is 17 inches and the Dell (6), 19 inches. Both have adjustable height, DVI input, and the ability to rotate between portrait and landscape orientation. To save money: 21 IBM $145 23 NEC Mitsubishi $260 The IBM (21) is the lowest-priced CRT with a 16-inch viewable image. The NEC (23) has an 18-inch viewable image, very good image quality, and an attractive price. Key numbers with a * indicate Quick Picks. Within types, in performance order. LCD MONITORS These have a flat display like that on most laptop computers. Their labeled size is the same as their viewable image. Brand & model Price 1 Apple Studio Display $700 17 2 ViewSonic VA720 550 17 3 Dell 1703FP 530 17 4 HP Pavilion f1903 750 19 5 IBM Think Vision L170P 600 17 6 Dell 1901FP 680 19 7 KDS Radius Rad-7c 490 17 8 ViewSonic VX900 750 19 9 Samsung SyncMaster 173P 690 17 10 Samsung SyncMaster 192N 700 19 11 Sony SDM-HS73 550 17 12 Sony SDM-HS53 450 15 13 Phillips 170B4 500 17 14 Dell E172FP 450 17 15 HP Pavilion f1703 550 17 16 Sony SDM-HX93 900 19 17 Compaq Presario fp7317 530 17 18 *CTX S700B 420 17 19 NEC Mitsubishi Multisync LCD 1765 550 17 20 eMachines E17T 500 17 CRT MONITORS These use a bulky TV-style cathode-ray tube. Their labeled size is an inch larger than the viewable image. 21 IBM E74 145 16 22 IBM Think Vision C170 190 16 23 NEC Mitsubishi MultiSync 97F 260 18 24 Dell E773c 150 16 25 Gateway EV730 150 16 26 ViewSonic A90f+ 230 18 27 Samsung SyncMaster 955DF 200 18"