Maximum PC

Im sure most of you saw the video MAX PC had with the Samsung 6 screen Bezel setup. So what kind of practical use would you have for it?

How many video cards would you need 3? Would you stream different stuff to each monitor?
Im curious as to the use of it. Maybe some could inform me a use? (not trying to be a wise ass, just curious)

I would lay a claim to bragging rights. That is about it.

I use two monitors on my workstation, simply because when doing programming work I can place my tool boxes on a single monitor and my work on another. The same is true of video editing with higher end video editing software. Beyond applications like that I can see no use for anything over two monitors.

Ron

You'd need one 6-Display Port card to do that. I ain't doing it though. I use three 23.6's over two cards and am geeky just for doing that. It's been a tough battle, but I can't get anyone to do two, let alone 3 so I have to pull back a bit. Six? Can't do it I'm afraid. I guess the usage would be w/ stock traders honestly, but no one else unless they want bragging rights.

I DO feel it's time though. Like Ron mentions, two screens are just so useful to me and so much easier now. Why isn't it common? I use to be afraid of the glass desk breaking with two big CRT's on it, and now we have LED's. No $1,200 Sony 22" or no $350 Viewsonic 22" even. We have two ports (more perhaps) to use on our cards and feel it's worth using them. I've had geeks and common folk both walk into this room and go "wow", and am still embarrassed (the non-geek says, "and you have a girlfriend, good job") . So if bragging rights are it, start with 3 big 22+ screens. You'll see it's not perfect and where the cards need to improve the drivers (Eff 3D).

But 6 screens? I can't use it and it's finally up to date with the old movie Swordfish. I seriously get lost with 3...it's a trip. Baby steps. You can run two right now I bet ya...and you can run 3 with minimal costs.

you can easily use 3 in a medical practice. everything is electronic now.

images on one (CT, MRI, audios, etc)
documents on another (last chart notes, meds, whatever)
desktop/medical management program/menus/misc on 3rd

more could be used (dictation window say, as we use voice dictation), but any after that may not be as useful as the 1st three.

My brother is a radiologist, and that's the first place I felt like I wanted that much info. GE had images on all with pops and he reacted well using them. I think that's why I'm the engineer and not the smart one

I have 2 screens at work and only 1 at home. I wanted to get a 2nd, so i can game on one and do my work on the other. Thats all i could really see myself using is 2 atm.

Thats funny Chumly, i thought of Swordfish as well.

I wouldn't have a use for six screens, but I could definitely use two. If I had the room, I would be using two right now actually.

One to watch Netflix, the other to do browsing and such.

I have two screens, its really nice. I would like a third at some point too. As for six screens, I would probably use them to help me think of a use for six screens.

I'd sit back and wonder why the hell I blew so much money on something so useless! lol, for anyone but what has been mentioned above, it's just bragging rights, and to me it's just bragging that you know how to waste a lot of money.

I like running 2 monitors though. I have my main 25" widescreen (cost me 180 bucks) and a 19" widescreen mounted on the wall above the 25 where I have various monitoring software programs displaying info.

(side note: I miss having ATI cards for one reason, I could setup the desktop properties to run up and down across the monitors as well as side to side, that was awesome. I didn't realize Nvidia only provides for side to side monitors until after I had switched /rage)

there is a lot of space across my 3 23 " monitors... i cannot imagine using 6 screens

i just use one for games, one for movies, and one for internet

if i had 6 screens, the extra 3 would be wasteful. even to game with eyefinity, you would probably want 9 for the crosshair to be clearly seen. so i stick with 3 and feel good about it. 3 is a good eyefinity number

How to use 6 screens? Multitask.

When I watch a baseball game I like to have at least 4 windows open in view, one for the video of the game itself, one for the Gameday display of the strike zone and pitch details, one for the gameday thread on the MLB message boards, and one for googling stats.

Since that barely fits my 1920x1080 42" LCD, I sometimes have to use a notebook/netbook or two to achieve sufficient display area for other applications to run between innings.

I'd simply add extra monitors except I had to remove one of my videocards to free up a PCIe slot for my boot SSD because my old Maximus Formula only has two PCIe16x slots.

This is why I'm anxiously waiting for the MSI Big Bang Marshal (B3) with its eight full-length PCIe slots to hit the street. Even with three videocards, I'd still have enough high-speed connectivity for up to five SSDs, RAID cards or HSDL controllers.

It would be nice to use the 42"er just for watching the game itself and use another four displays for multitasking.

I'm glad this is brought up actually. Sure, sure...6 is a lot of screen, but why not 3? Let's start there...

I have to back up and base this on experience and past costs: One 20" Sony CRT = $1,200. A trio of 20" Viewsonic CRT's = $1,200 (plus a hefty desk). A trio of Asus 24's now? half that. I just feel it's normal to have more than one screen on a desk and odd numbers of these rule. People talk about fancy pants 22" IPS screens that cost $600, but I gotta ask if they ever get them and if it's really better. Would you pay $600 for one big expansive desktop and gaming environment or plop it all down on one screen? The cost factor really doesn't matter to me as I know what these things use to cost and It's relative. Gas and smokes use to cost 50-cent, milk as a dime a gallon, and monitors are now really cheap. The largest threshold I face is when I ask that very question: "Why don't you run 3 monitors?" Cost...it's too expensive; and that's silly to me.

Look at upgraders today. They may have a perfect system, but are willing to drop $2K for something that doesn't really need fixed. They'll want RAID0, SLI, a $150 mouse, and overclock the piss out of their machines hoping for an edge...but never worry about the UI. If multitasking is why we buy 8 core CPU's, then we should adapt and actually multitask...and not on one screen. I'm biased here, but I can't go back to one screen...just can't. If you get a second screen, which all cards support, you want a third. It just evens things out. And gamers for sure want 3 and not two...odd numbers just have you staring at a bezel.

Anyway, what's you're opinion? Why are you still running one screen?

Hi Ya Jeff



Well let's see. On my desk (desk being retired kitchen table) here I have three monitors. One on my everyday computer used mostly for Internet and whatever, some minor programming and assorted bullshit. I do not game so all this needs on this table is a single 23" monitor which serves what I do just fine. Beside that are a pair of older 19" Samsung SyncMaster monitors. Those are connected to my workstation computer. Now on the workstation I like dual monitors and if space allowed the 19" would be bigger. However, they serve fine for now. The big merit is if I am screwing around with development I can put a shitload of my tool boxes on one screen and my work on the other. That does make for nice. However, two is all I really need and hell I can only look at one at a time anyway.

Now at the wife's TV station they have one wall in a control room dedicated to monitors. They use them all during a production shoot. Different cameras feeding different video feeds to different monitors and the director calling the shots on what each camera should do as he views 16 or 20 monitors. Beyond shit like that I can't see much need for me to have a wall of monitors at home. The remaining systems I have running (two more) are in the electronics workroom extension of this computer room and each PC out there has a single 22" monitor.

Personally, for what I do, things are fine the way they are. Shit, I can only really look at one at a time anyway.

I guess if someone has a need at home for 4, 6, 8 or whatever monitors then cool.

Oh yeah, on a nostalgic note. I still have one of three 21" Sony Trinitron flat screened CRT monitors. They had dual input and were the monitor of the day at about $1,100 each new. The bastards also weigh just over 70 pounds each. I still have one of those that works fine but will take two men to drag the bastard out to the trash so it lays here on the floor inactive.

Just My Take.......
Ron

I am just now getting to where I think I could use two.
I just bought a software defined radio for my amateur radio setup. I would use one monitor for the radios operating program and the other for using the digital modes and log keeping.

I definitely would use two or three if my desk had enough room on it.

No desk supports 3 screens any more than no case supports water cooling. It's up to us and how we use the desk.

I had a behemoth of a corner desk and had the 3 screens mounted to the hutch. All was perfect, but the rest of the desktop was really just an excuse to store crap...pure crap; just stuff I figured I'd deal with tomorrow and never got to it. Moved, the room is smaller, the desk is the smallest I can find...and 3 screen fit on it. I brought the hutch and it sucks. I'd be better off with the generic stands than being this close to the screens...I think I'm getting a suntan! The moral of the story, I guess, is that 3 screens fit desks just fine. Printer and PC just needs to find more creative homes to call their own.

But going multi-mon is an addiction. No longer are these things $500-$1,200 monsters, but rather $200 a pop. If a $600 video card sounds feasible, then $600 in screen should 1st be a given.