1280x1024 = average 17" resolution.
1600x1200 = average 19" resolution.
2x 17" =2,621,440
1x 19" =1,920,000
what resolution does the avergae 15" do?? assuming it does 1024x768
then
1x 19" + 1x 15" =1,920,000 + 786,432 =2,706,432
therefore if you had 2 17" monitors then it would be better than 1 19" monitor.
also if you had 1 19" monitor and a 15" monitor then you would have a wee bit more room than 2 17" monitors.
i would go for the 19" because you don’t need heaps of room for the tools etc… but having extra room for the 3d window is VERY good. also say using gimp or somthing you just stick all your tools on the small monitor and have the program open on the big one. (which is what the pros do)
get the 17" dual. but make sure ou have a dual-HEAD card from nvidia, the latest CVS (linuxwacom-dev) snapshot of linuxwacom, and buttload of patience, along with this:
and make sure you set your “stylus” and “eraser” subsections in your xf86config file with:
Option "Twinview" "horizontal"
or vertical if they are in that position, but i doubt it.
(only if you have twinview)
make sure you use nvidia twinview(nview windows) in both linux, and windows, other wise blender will be slower because of acceleration issues.
it’s tricky but worth it.
alltaken:
i would go for the 19" because you don’t need heaps of room for the tools etc… but having extra room for the 3d window is VERY good. also say using gimp or somthing you just stick all your tools on the small monitor and have the program open on the big one. (which is what the pros do)
have’nt decided yet, but it seems most people would like to go for the 17" dual monitor setup…and why? why don’t anyone type if they voted would like to know the reasons why they vote as they do
well I already did… I had 19+15" just before the 19" went to rest, or got old VERY fast…it looks as objects on the desktop( 19 screen) is so much blurry that you cant read or see what’s on the screen, only some object and some color…like VERY bad eyesight sighs
yes…I know what you mean, but since it is better to have two alike monitors, models and same size, it is much easier to work with…
refesh rate, reolution??
(the higher the refresh rate the quicker your screen dies, also the higher the resolution the quicker it dies, so i have my screen at 75Hz rather than the max 85Hz, and the res at 1600x1200 instead of 1920x1440)
also did you ever adjsut it correctly or try adjusting it using the OSD on the monitor.
also what happend when it died, did it jsut get really blurry??
have you tried DEGAUSING it , or any other adjustments.
i know that my 19" screen was crap to look at but i got it professionaly adjusted (under warentee) and it was great after that.
I usually had 1152x864 @ 85 Hz and sometimes 1280x1024 @ maybe 85 or 75 Hz (don’t remember)…I wont have any higher than that…to hard to read on the screen, most people would consider it alreadty to high…
the screen started to flex couple of times last I booted before it went down, and suddenly it flashed and all things were badly blurry, and I tried Degauss 2 times, but no work…I haven’t though consulted my local computer store (1-2 min away by walk or 1 block…) but my monitor is 4 years old and have probably an outdated warranty, and I bought it living in another city, about 120 km from here up north east…and I wonder it that company eve still exits, but I might head down today and talk with my local store about adjustment…then I might save money…or why not, buy a new 19" and have two of them…YAY!! that would rock but then it would take a crapload of energy out of my new FX5600 128MB card, and I saw they had a 256MB too, but if then, the memory speed drops very low to 5 ns, I think my current card has something like 3.6 ns or even lower…
well, anyway…we’ll see…but keep the suggestions coming, always welcomed !!
btw…do you live in New Zeeland ? correct me if I am wrong…
I use a 17" Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 70 and it’s a great, great monitor. I heard with LCD it’s not good for moving image because it flicks a Plasma would be the best if you plan to use a thin monitor.