From: krisk@Apple.COM (Kris Kreutzman)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 10 Oct 92 00:06:19 GMT
Organization: Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CA

dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu (Daryl Biberdorf) writes:

>In article <#9tzcma@rpi.edu> johnsd2@rpi.edu writes:
>>In article <4eoxNRS00YV949Gsxy@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
>>|> I think that neither OS/2 nor Windows has the ability to virtualize
>>|> monitor 2 as part of monitor 1, producing one big monitor (a la mac). 
>>
>>They don't, from every account I've heard. There is supposed to be
>>a board that lets u use 4 vga monitors, but they all have to be 4-bit
>>deep and the same size. It isn't very usefull.

>Why is this not "very usefull[sic]"?  Granted, the Mac method of adapting
>to different bit depths is more convenient (and it allows you to still use
>internal video in conjunction with a video card), but most people who
>realize from the start that they need multiple monitors (they *did* buy
>a quad-VGA or quad-EGA card, right?) will probably buy 4 of the same type
>of monitor as well.

>This doesn't sound at all like a real limitation.

It all depends upon what you want to do.  I find it very useful to have one
small 24-bit color monitor for running programs and a 2-page monochrome
monitor for programming.  And if I need the space I can detach my other
2-page monitor from my CX and put it in my FX in less than 5 minutes giving
me LOTS of screen real estate without haveing to resort to micro-fine print.

>>Incidentally, it doesn't "virtualize monitor 2 as par of mointor 1",
>>they are internally represented as separate (which is why they can
>>have different depths), but QuickDraw knows how to deal with multiple
>>monitors. Hence if you are so inclined its trivial to make (special) use
>>of an extra monitor- you walk the monitor list until you find the
>>monitors you want, then open windows in that part of the global space. But
>>if you aren't the user can explicitly put windows on other monitors.
>>Its real neat.

>Internally, *all* video cards would have to represent them as separate,
>since each monitor will have its own video memory associated with it, right?
>In the case of the quad-VGA cards for use with Windows on a PC, the
>4 screens are virtualized into one large screen with a resolution
>of (4*horiz res)x(vertical res), giving you a playing field that's four
>times as wide.

>Granted, it's most cool that QuickDraw deals with varying bit depths
>across monitors, but I think it's mostly a non-issue in reality.  Heck,
>I still know precious few people with multiple-headed Macs or PCs at all.

If I stand up and look around I can count over 20 people who have more than
one monitor.  Why because they can and because it is extreemly useful.
Of course, this IS Apple :-)  I'm sure that the reason why the ability to
use multiple monitors on the original Mac II was not because it was neat
but because it was useful.

>I'm not really advocating the PC here; I'm just trying to present correct
>information.  I own and use a Mac.

>Daryl
>-- 
>Daryl Biberdorf  N5GJM    d-biberdorf@tamu.edu or  dlb5404@tamsun.tamu.edu
>Support the 27th Amendment: The right of the People to enjoy low-cost
>cable television shall not be infringed.    (not.)

Kris Kreutzman - Apple ESD - All opinions reserved.
"Sorry that's classified as SECRET.  If I told you I'd have to kill you."
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy