On 04/01/2011 06:44 PM, Linuxguy123 wrote: It's the DVI clock speed, which is limited to a maximum pixel clock frequency of 165 MHz. This works out at 2.75 megapixels at 60 Hz. You can get dual link HDMI. It all gets a bit complicated because HDMI 1.3 allows 340 MHz, so in theory a single HDMI link should be able to drive that Big Dell -- but I wouldn't bet the farm on it unless I'd made very sure that both ends support such a high clock speed. The Dell web page doesn't say. Andrew.

On 04/01/2011 05:16 PM, Linuxguy123 wrote: That's what I do. Good for photo editing too. Whatever you choose, make sure it's an IPS monitor. The DVI interface maxes out at 2098 × 1311. To do better than that, i.e. to drive the Big Dell, you need a "dual link DVI" video card. Andrew.

On 04/04/2011 09:15 PM, Linuxguy123 wrote: Don't worry.... No matter what you say about how well it works for "you" there will be someone that will argue that what "you" are doing isn't optimal and you should do it "their way'. :-) -- While it may be true that a watched pot never boils, the one you don't keep an eye on can make an awful mess of your stove. -- Edward Stevenson 葛斯克 愛德華 / 台北市八德路四段

Joe Zeff Linuxguy123: I have, but I do find it a bit of an organisational pain. And some things are far less than intuitive to use when their controls are on the next screen. I've also had to deal with using two computers side by side, and that was slightly less painful for some things. e.g. Web site work, with editing on one, and checking on the other. By the time you get around to playing with dual monitors, you might want to consider if what you really want is one *HUGE* monitor with very high resolution. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.

On Mon, 2011-04-04 at 02:21 +0930, Tim wrote: Have you tried using a dual monitor setup. I find it indispensable. Right now I am typing an email in my left display while watching a download in the right one. Its not the same as having both windows in one display, its better. For one thing, you never have to worry about a window in one display covering up a window in the other display, even if the other app does funny things with the focus. I fully agree with this. Comparing tweaked photos, especially for things like white balance, has to be done on the same monitor. And its really handy if they are immediately side by side or if the same areas can be blown up and moved simultaneously. Digikam has a great tool for doing this.

On Sun, 2011-04-03 at 07:46 -0700, Joe Zeff wrote: Copy and paste could be useful, but comparison of two pictures on two displays has this problem: If the displays are not producing an identical response, and they won't be, you may produce errors in your picture when your using one monitor and tweaking it against the picture on the other. Just how close you can get two monitors to look the same, for crucial comparisons, depends on the monitors. This is a long standing problem in television production, and it takes expensive, and identical model, monitors, and frequent re-alignment, before you get them producing close enough similar pictures that you don't get really annoyed about it. The long standing solution was using monochrome preview monitors for your cameras, you only have two variables with them (brightness and contrast), rather than set up and gain of each colour, plus different phosphors in different monitors. -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.25-78.2.56.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.

Dunno if this helps. I have a Dell 24" wide and an AOC standard 18inch to it's left. I do a lot of devel and art work on 2 drupal web sites which requires at least 2 windows open for each and 3 if one counts ftp, 4 if one counts cpanel and a lot of Newsletter work in Inkscape, Scribus, Gimp, 2 english and 1 Russian translation thereof and emails containing tranlsated text. I find dual monitors essential because I have to compare all or some of the above simultaneously across different media. If I could run another one or two I'd be even happier. One large monitor even with multiple desktops is far too limiting I need to able to slide windows off to the side while still visible, it's a massive benefit. If your chair swivels as does mine the issue of a monitor off to the side is less problematic because it's easy to rearrange work. Roger

On 04/03/2011 10:25 PM, Linuxguy123 wrote: The size of the desk is irrelevant if you use VESA mounts. If you are going to spend the money on the monitors...then a few extra $ on a nice mounting platform is peanunts. -- In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. -- Oscar Wilde 葛斯克 愛德華 / 台北 市八德路四段

I figured out what I am going to do. I like the idea of having a huge monitor, ie the U2711 or the U3011 because of their pixel area. 2560 x 1440 and 2560 x 1600 respectively ON ONE SCREEN. I do a lot of photo editing and a screen that size would allow me to view images in a large way and still have room for editing tools around them. I find the 1680x1050 area on my 20 inch monitors limiting in this respect. However, I don't want to lose the handiness of dual monitor functionality. Its really nice that in KDE each monitor acts as its own desktop. I always have things running in my second monitor and its extremely handy to have something open in a side monitor while working on something in the main monitor, especially when cutting and pasting between applications. However, the U2711 and the U3011 are too large to have 2 such monitors side by side. The 2711 is about 25 inches wide and the 3011 is 27.5 inches wide. My desk isn't wide enough to have 2 such monitors, especially when I like one monitor to be directly in front of me and the other monitor to be to the left, angled inward. So... what I decided is to use one huge monitor for my main display and a second, smaller monitor beside it, operating in a portrait orientation. The U3011 is 2560x1600. I already have a 20" Dell that is 1680x1050 and nearly as wide as the U3011 is high. If I rotate the 20 inch monitor to portrait orientation, I get 1050 x 1680, the length of which nicely matches the U3011's height ( ie 1680 pixels high versus 1600 pixels high) and the pixel pitch is pretty similar as well. The other nice issue about having the side monitor in portrait mode is that the applications I run on the side (text editors, email clients and word processors) make better use of portrait orientation than they do landscape orientation. Thus the two monitors combined will give me 3610 x ~ 1600 pixels. The Linux code to do this is here: http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=976120 I'll put my order in for the U3011 tomorrow.