TraceofCak
I have been saving money for a dual monitor setup for a while, and I finally have enough to get another monitor. But now I have a feeling that it wouldn't be useful to me, since I'm not a programmer, designer, or hard-core gamer. If I don't do anything like that, what's the use of 2 monitors other than... Email... or Facebook? Someone out there wanna tell me the good, the bad, and the ugly about having more than one monitor?
Answer
If you multitask, it can be very useful since you don't have to keep switching windows. For example, if you like to play games or talk to friends and do work at the same time. And, as you say, it's very useful for programmers and graphic designers since they typically have multiple windows open at the same time.
For an average user, it might not be really helpful if you only do one thing at a time. Perhaps if you use social networking sites all the time to talk to your friends and it annoys you to constantly switch tabs it might be helpful, but apart from that, an average user wouldn't benefit greatly. It would just use more electricity, cost you money and take up space on the desk.
Also note that Mozilla are developing a social API for browsers that would integrate all your social networking onto the browser so you can talk directly to your friends without having to switch tabs. See this graphic for more information: http://i.imgur.com/SZGYC.jpg
So, in the future, having a separate monitor for social interaction might not even be necessary.
If you multitask, it can be very useful since you don't have to keep switching windows. For example, if you like to play games or talk to friends and do work at the same time. And, as you say, it's very useful for programmers and graphic designers since they typically have multiple windows open at the same time.
For an average user, it might not be really helpful if you only do one thing at a time. Perhaps if you use social networking sites all the time to talk to your friends and it annoys you to constantly switch tabs it might be helpful, but apart from that, an average user wouldn't benefit greatly. It would just use more electricity, cost you money and take up space on the desk.
Also note that Mozilla are developing a social API for browsers that would integrate all your social networking onto the browser so you can talk directly to your friends without having to switch tabs. See this graphic for more information: http://i.imgur.com/SZGYC.jpg
So, in the future, having a separate monitor for social interaction might not even be necessary.
A good processor for a dual monitor setup?
Ryan
is the core i3 2100 or 2120 ample for a multi monitor setup...more specifically a dual monitor setup? the main reason why i have chosen this is due to the fact that it runs cool...i know about the i5 hype and i don't think it is all that good....i have already used the i5 2500 without noticing any significant differences..also these processors get real hot in intensive applications....hence the i3...what do you think? and i should also make it clear that i am not buying it expressly for games...i have a gaming rig..i want this to be a workstation for all the relevant stuff...so any advice is welcome....cheers.
also what do you think of the phenom 965 BE?
Answer
depends what the work station is really going to be used for, e.g. video editing or just surfing and word processing.
the i3 is good but the i5 is better. with 2 screens i personally would lean towards the i5 because the big performance increase, but the i3 is cheaper and could mean you get a better set of dual screens.
the 965 isnt worth it the 955 is 99.9% as good and cheaper. good chip would be better than the i3 but not as good as the i5.
an i5 2300 or 2400 would offer you amazing performance and would last longer than the i3 and 965.
i have gone off AMD in the last week because i was going to build a amd system with the bulldozer processors but they where so disappointing a i5 beats them on nearly everything and offers better value currently because 8 cores are not needed.
if i was you play it safe and go for a i5 2300 or 2400 they will offer you good performance for years to come. which makes them better value in the long run and for general tasks intel beats amd easily because they are so much more up to date.
good im shore you will make the correct decision.
depends what the work station is really going to be used for, e.g. video editing or just surfing and word processing.
the i3 is good but the i5 is better. with 2 screens i personally would lean towards the i5 because the big performance increase, but the i3 is cheaper and could mean you get a better set of dual screens.
the 965 isnt worth it the 955 is 99.9% as good and cheaper. good chip would be better than the i3 but not as good as the i5.
an i5 2300 or 2400 would offer you amazing performance and would last longer than the i3 and 965.
i have gone off AMD in the last week because i was going to build a amd system with the bulldozer processors but they where so disappointing a i5 beats them on nearly everything and offers better value currently because 8 cores are not needed.
if i was you play it safe and go for a i5 2300 or 2400 they will offer you good performance for years to come. which makes them better value in the long run and for general tasks intel beats amd easily because they are so much more up to date.
good im shore you will make the correct decision.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Should I get a dual monitor setup?
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 100% based on 998 ratings. 5 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment