One 40 inch monitor...or two 24 inch monitors?

[student_of_trades]

Hi! It seems the general consensus on this board is that two 24" would be preferred over one 40". I haven't been able to figure out why that is.

Most of the folks who have been trading for a while have always used a "multi" setup of some sort. One reason for that, however, might be that there weren't ever as many "big a**" monitor alternatives at reasonable price points as there are today. For that reason I wonder if the "multi" bias is one that stems from the sorta' logic of...."that's the way we've always done it, and that's the way that our mentors did it before us".

I currently trade with 2 monitors....and my prior setup was 3. I'm going to build a new system, and just happened to wander by a shop that sells a 40" LCD Hi-Def....and....WOW!! It got me thinking.

Is there anyone out there who has experienced both trading environments.....meaning, a "multi" setup and then at another time a "one big a** monitor" setup? What are your thoughts? What'd you ultimately go with and why?


CHEERS!

David

 

[KillPhil08]

resolution isnt the same for a 40' compared to a 24', its like doing a projector - it's not going to be as good quality - or thats what i heard i was thinking the same (i can send you to a website for £300 37' if you want)

 

[zambuck]

.....Just look at the res figures....1900 X 1200 res on a double lamp 15" UXGA LCD is far superior than 1048 X 860 runing on 38" LCD or anything else........

...A typical cone of vision and the size of the monitors is what you need to look at.....

 

[Trader333]

Hi! It seems the general consensus on this board is that two 24" would be preferred over one 40". I haven't been able to figure out why that is.

It is because most people are not myopic or have taken measures through use of laser surgery, contact lenses or glasses to overcome it.


Paul

 

[chilltrader]

4 * 21" works for me!

 

[DaxDestroyer]

21" is my choice for screens as well

 

[student_of_trades]

It is because most people are not myopic or have taken measures through use of laser surgery, contact lenses or glasses to overcome it.


Paul

Hey Paul....I wish I wasn't so dense when it comes to this stuff. But, since I am....I'll ask you a follow up. Ha! Why would one 40" be something that generates the comment you made, but someone using three 22" wouldn't?

There must be some basic, fundamental weakness about the "one big a**" monitor setup that I'm missing. Is it, as ZAMBUCK suggested, the resolution? Aside from that, is there something else that is just plain "wrong" about going "big"?


CHEERS!

David

 

[shadowninja]

4 * 21" works for me!

...



That's what she said.

 

[donaldduke]

Hi! It seems the general consensus on this board is that two 24" would be preferred over one 40". I haven't been able to figure out why that is.

Most of the folks who have been trading for a while have always used a "multi" setup of some sort. One reason for that, however, might be that there weren't ever as many "big a**" monitor alternatives at reasonable price points as there are today. For that reason I wonder if the "multi" bias is one that stems from the sorta' logic of...."that's the way we've always done it, and that's the way that our mentors did it before us".

I currently trade with 2 monitors....and my prior setup was 3. I'm going to build a new system, and just happened to wander by a shop that sells a 40" LCD Hi-Def....and....WOW!! It got me thinking.

Is there anyone out there who has experienced both trading environments.....meaning, a "multi" setup and then at another time a "one big a** monitor" setup? What are your thoughts? What'd you ultimately go with and why?


CHEERS!

David

A mid range £600 40 inch hi-def is not going to give the same quality display as a £300 24 inch.
To get the same quality you would probably have to spend over £1200 on a higher end 40 inch display.

 

[dcraig1]

If you want a large screen(s) probably the best bet is 30" which have 2560x1600 resolution. To my knowledge that is the highest resolution you can get at the moment - higher than larger or smaller screens.

for example

[Phoronix] Samsung SyncMaster 305T 30-inch LCD Review

In AU you can get one of these for about AUD 1500.

You will also need a video card with dual link DVI (not dual head) to drive one of these beasts. Many current cards do have dual link dvi, but you do need to check this.

 

[donaldduke]

If you want a large screen(s) probably the best bet is 30" which have 2560x1600 resolution. To my knowledge that is the highest resolution you can get at the moment - higher than larger or smaller screens.

for example

[Phoronix] Samsung SyncMaster 305T 30-inch LCD Review

You will also need a video card with dual link DVI (not dual head) to drive one of these beasts. Many current cards do have dual link dvi, but you do need to check this.

Very nice and i want one but am too tight to spend £1000 for one.

The OP could get 4 24 inch monitors for that... Although personally i would prefer a single 30 inch running 2560x1600 as a second monitor to my new macbook, which comes with dual link dvi. But instead im going to spend £250 on a single 24 inch which runs at 1920x1200.

 

[dcraig1]

Very nice and i want one but am too tight to spend £1000 for one.

The OP could get 4 24 inch monitors for that... Although personally i would prefer a single 30 inch running 2560x1600 as a second monitor to my new macbook, which comes with dual link dvi. But instead im going to spend £200 on a 24 inch which runs at 1920x1200.

Should be less than 1000 quid. Divide AU price by 2 and that should be close.

Of course what you say about value for money is true, but if you have several smaller screens, you need to factor in the costs of mounts/stands for them too.

 

[sneville]

Resolution as people have already pointed out but also window management becomes a pain when dealing with larger screens.

For example its alot easier to move a window to the second/ third or fourth screen and maximise the window to fill the whole screen instead of trying to tile several windows to fit a larger screen.

I have 2 28" screens and find them slightly to big. I thinking about adding 2 22"s but now i wish i had just gone for 4 22"s or even 6 19"s

 

[Bint_Crusher]

Ask yourself the question: Would you prefer to have a 14" c*ock or 2x7" ones you could use simutaneousky.

 

[Xeno]

2 x 20 inch non-widescreen side by side works best for me. 3 or 4 monitors would be too high, and widescreen would be too wide while each screen not being high enough. Buy a bracket to keep them off the desk and at a nice height.

Each one is 1600x1200. The other advantage is you can angle both of them so more of the total screen area is a similar distance from your eyes.

And 20 inch 1600x1200 are really cheap. Think they were about GBP110 each.

cheers

 

[NetTecture]

It is also an element of angle. A 40" screen is flat - 2 to 2 20" screens are arranged not in a flat pane, but slowly moving around. I sit in front of currently 4 screens (2 on the left for my regular computer, 2 on the right for my trading) and may move that to an 8 screen setup slowly (6 for trading). Whatever, the screens form a nice arc so that when I turn my center of attention, i always look streight into one.

A large screen does sadly not arc. This makes the left and right end harder to look at.

Personally I always found anything above 24" simply too large to work with nicely. I currently use 20,2" dell 2007 screens (not widescreen - sorry - this is not primarily for looking videos) and I find their size being pretty much perfect. The resolution (1600x1200), too.

 

[TAjammy]

...



That's what she said.

 

[srusli]

this is an update, of a 40 inch monitor :cheesy: