Is 4 too much?

[Templarian]

So we have 2 extra 19" Dell monitors in the office and my boss said he would get another video card for my work comp... just wondering is there any downside to 4 monitors on one computer... like will it bog down my computer greatly (they are nice video cards).

The problem is the computer is a 3.2ghz... yea kind of ancient thats what I'm fearing it won't be able to multitask that many visible apps across 4 monitors. Or am I thinking of this wrong?

Thanks guys.

[GW02]

3.2Ghz what? That's quite a broad descriptor.

Either way, people were using Ultramon to run 12+ monitors in the windows 98 days, so there shouldn't be an issue performance-wise.

Only thing I'd worry about is that Windows Vista is extraordinarily picky about having nearly identical video cards to run Aero, even if you're not doing an SLI setup... that's the downside to Avalon's DirectX approach I suppose.

Definitely I run two screens on my desktop and a laptop on the side and it's not tough to multitask.

[edit: and yes, it's been a while. Hello again, everyone.]

[Templarian]

Our company replaces all the computers in 8 months when we switch to Windows Vista so I'm stuck with crappy xp till then.

Its like a 3.2ghz intel one of the old ones I don't really know the specs of the thing. Just making sure it won't effect the overall performance of the computer.

Also will a ATI card and a nvidia card work nicely together or will they hate each other?

(Oh I will actually have 5 if I count my laptop next to me... which if I wanted I could grab the 2 other monitors in the office and connect those to my laptop... but then the guys would get jealous and question why I have 6 monitors around my desk).

[GW02]

With XP any combination of graphics cards will work just fine.

[.soulty]

^ might have issues with desktop management drivers though. ATI (don't know it name) and nvidia (nview). I'd assume they will clash.

edit: 4 19s aint much anyway, as long as you don't lose your concentration while working. I'm running 2/ 24inch widescreens :beam:

[Templarian]

When I said too much I mean on the processor. As I've figured out its mostly just the video cards that take the load.

I'm purchasing a random ATI that is vista compatible so it will only be like 100 at most.

[Theros]

Frankly...I don't see the downside in trying this out. If it doesn't work...oh well. But if it does (which it should I think), then you'd have just that more screen real estate. Think of the possibilities! :P

[Templarian]

^Theros in an office sense paperwork a true *****. We have enough in our office expense account...

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Graphics_Cards/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=A0637004

Heres the one were gonna get next Monday (comes with the cords and everything).

[Gundark]

Yes, 4 monitors is too many. Please send your extra monitors to me, thank you.

Used to have dual 19" monitors but somebody who works on a laptop complained that they needed a full-sized monitor while at work and I had to give mine up. :(

Hope that 4 monitor thing works out for you. I would love to have that setup!

[Jeff Wheeler]

Several people at my work have 4 roughly that size. It should be fine. :)

[DanontheMoon]

Four monitors sounds like a recipe for awesome. Post pics.

[Theros]

THat GPU doesn't actually seem that strong..


^Theros in an office sense paperwork a true *****. We have enough in our office expense account...

http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/products/Graphics_Cards/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=A0637004

Heres the one were gonna get next Monday (comes with the cords and everything).

[Templarian]

^Its PCI lol.

[Theros]

^Its PCI lol.


Yeah...go figure

[rumblesushi]

Should be fine, as long as you don't try and run a 3D game on each screen ;)

I'm assuming it's a 3.2 ghz pentium 4 then?

By the way what the hell do you mean by "crappy XP"? XP is far, far better than Vista. Vista is the single worst OS I have ever used, it's like "fisher price, my first OS". Terrible.

[Theros]

Uh, wtf...XP's default skin is like "fisher price" to me lol...

Frankly, Vista is much more stable for me, I can't see how you'd think its the worst OS you've used...that's the level ME is at, not Vista.


Should be fine, as long as you don't try and run a 3D game on each screen ;)

I'm assuming it's a 3.2 ghz pentium 4 then?

By the way what the hell do you mean by "crappy XP"? XP is far, far better than Vista. Vista is the single worst OS I have ever used, it's like "fisher price, my first OS". Terrible.

[Templarian]

rumblesushi, when was the last time you used Vista :lol: RC1?

XP is just horrible in comparison. If I didn't have the search feature and win+tab its like going back in the stone-age (plus all the other things... win dvd ect...)

If you have a old computer XP is fine and I would never even consider installing Vista on a crappy computer (anything lower than an 8 series nvidia for instance).

[rumblesushi]

I hate the way it complicates EVERYTHING. Things are so much faster and easier to do in XP. I find Vista even worse than ME and the Mac OS's.

And even on a high end computer XP runs faster, and loads faster, no question.

To be honest I was shocked by how bad Vista was when I used it. I'm going to continue to use XP until the next Windows comes out.

I'm not sure which version of Vista I used, it was on a friend's computer, I've never installed it on one of mine.

Personally I don't care much for the stylisation of an OS, that's why I've never been interested in mac OS, being that it's an operating system, I just want it to operate, and do what I tell it etc :D

XP SP2 has given me the least amount of crashes and problems and complications than any other OS, and I find everything is fairly quick in it, that's why I like it.

[Theros]

Actually, your wrong about the XP being faster than Vista...as of right now (after SP1 basically), the speed of Vista outside of games and inside of games is basically the same as XP....

And also, how can you comment on it if you don't even run it yourself? Your friend's set-up could have been ****ty, which would have affected a lot of things, many of which wouldn't have been Vista's fault. Not defending Vista here...but I just think your complaints aren't that valid frankly.


I hate the way it complicates EVERYTHING. Things are so much faster and easier to do in XP. I find Vista even worse than ME and the Mac OS's.

And even on a high end computer XP runs faster, and loads faster, no question.

To be honest I was shocked by how bad Vista was when I used it. I'm going to continue to use XP until the next Windows comes out.

I'm not sure which version of Vista I used, it was on a friend's computer, I've never installed it on one of mine.

Personally I don't care much for the stylisation of an OS, that's why I've never been interested in mac OS, being that it's an operating system, I just want it to operate, and do what I tell it etc :D

XP SP2 has given me the least amount of crashes and problems and complications than any other OS, and I find everything is fairly quick in it, that's why I like it.

[.soulty]

it's getting real old hearing people bag on vista, seriously. I've been running rc1, rc2, vista and now vista sp1 and it's been great, had no dramas at all. Most of the time these 'vista sucks' comments come from people you run it for a whole 2 minutes! :a:

[Jeff Wheeler]

No, I didn’t even get two minutes — I got a red screen of death one minute into installation. ;)

[Templarian]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Screen_of_Death

That was in the very early betas man... and yes hilarious to say the least.

[Theros]

I don't love Vista either...but I just hate how people automatically follow the mainstream media (which like the Democrat nomination process recently...) just biases everyone's opinions. It's crazy IMO, if the media told everyone in the US to jump off a bridge, I'd bet half of them would.

Anyway, everyone please either use it for yourself for awhile, or read up on it more before commenting. That should go for any conversation.

[rumblesushi]

Actually, your wrong about the XP being faster than Vista...as of right now (after SP1 basically), the speed of Vista outside of games and inside of games is basically the same as XP....

And also, how can you comment on it if you don't even run it yourself? Your friend's set-up could have been ****ty, which would have affected a lot of things, many of which wouldn't have been Vista's fault. Not defending Vista here...but I just think your complaints aren't that valid frankly.

It was a core 2 duo with 2 gigs of ram and a dedicated graphics card. I know exactly what the setup was, because they asked me to sort it out, it WAS ****ty and full of viruses etc.

XP running on the same computer is much, much faster. I'm not talking about games and benchmarks and rendering either, quite simply I'm talking about boot up time and general use, the time it takes to navigate around, even just open IE etc etc.

It's horrible.

By the way, when I say fisher price, I am NOT talking about styling/design. Quite clearly it beats XP hands down there. I'm talking about functionality, which is bad.

And hey hey, hold your horses a second, I hope you're not regerring to me following mainstream media etc.

I don't read tech websites/magazines. They are incredibly boring to me, I'm interested in art/photography, motion graphics and games.

I had NO idea what the general opinion was about Vista before I used it, I mean really none at all.

All I knew was some people referred to a fair amount of things NOT being Vista compatible for the time being, so I thought I would stick with XP until Vista ran everything I wanted it to.

I was actually expecting to like Vista, for the simple reason that when XP came out, I thought it was better than any previous version of windows.

Logically, I thought Vista should be better than XP.

I was in for a big surprise, I disliked it intensely.

[.soulty]

ok ok, as much as I would like to argue XP v Vista I have to stop this so we can get back on topic. SO BACK TO TOPIC!!

[Templarian]

.soulty I already ordered the video card and everything this can be closed. I will res the workplace/office thread with a photo later.

XP running on the same computer is much, much faster. I'm not talking about games and benchmarks and rendering either, quite simply I'm talking about boot up time and general use, the time it takes to navigate around, even just open IE etc etc.
Boot up time is actually significantly slower for XP... I don't know what kind of tests you are running there (vista is about 25seconds if I remember right and like 10 coming out of hibernation, I generally only sleep my laptop so 3 second).


By the way, when I say fisher price, I am NOT talking about styling/design. Quite clearly it beats XP hands down there. I'm talking about functionality, which is bad.
The usability has been vastly improved over XP.

I'm starting to doubt you even used Vista.

[.soulty]

^ done, thread closed :)