From: tomster@bigwpi.WPI.EDU (Thomas Richard Dibble)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Multiple Video (was: Re: 7.1 vs. OS/2 and Windows NT)
Date: 13 Oct 92 04:23:07 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609-2280
NNTP-Posting-Host: bigwpi.wpi.edu
In-reply-to: bcoleman@hayes.com's message of 9 Oct 92 15:45:39 EDT

In article <6173.2ad5a923@hayes.com> bcoleman@hayes.com (Bill Coleman) writes:

   In article <4eoxNRS00YV949Gsxy@andrew.cmu.edu>, cj00+@andrew.cmu.edu (Carl B Jabido) writes:
   > Yes, Windows and OS/2 can have multiple monitors.  

   You can have as many monitors as you want. The problem is you can't *USE*
   multiple monitors. On the Macintosh you can.

Okay, before we get into anything here, my 2 cents:
	Multiple moniters is definitely a plus for the Mac.  The two-monitor
deal just doesn't work from within DOS; I don't know how well it works in OS/2.
There are many benifits to more than one monitor which can not be implemented
on a DOS box.

   > And no, it's not as nice or as easy as in a MacinToy 
   > (as per Re: Essence of flame:-)).  

   And that moniker belongs only in that thread. It has no place here, smiley
   or not.

(touchy, touchy ... )

   > It's mostly a hardware thing remember.  PC's probably could have defined a
   > better standard, but today, most people prefer to go to a big monitor
   > rather than two monitors at 640x480 (or whatever), although I'd love to
   > have two big monitors, rather than just one.

   I have yet to see a PC with a two-page display. Squeezing 1240 by 1024 on a
   16" monitor doesn't cut it.

Well, actually, I *have* seen a few PC's with two *seperate* displays, if that
is what you're talking about.  Does two-page refer to the monitor being
Radius-like (tall), or using one monitor to squeeze in two monitors of info
or what?

   Further, it isn't cost effective to have one giant monitor. I think the best
   combination for programming is a 13" 24-bit color monitor (for all those
   color applications), and a b/w full page display (for all that code and
   debugging windows). 

Very true.  However, this is the *only* setup which works well in DOS.  (Not
sure about 24-bit, though)

   You can probably buy such a setup for around $1500, maybe less. However,
   to buy the equivalent space in form of a 2-page, 24-bit color monitor would
   set you back about $4000. Ouch.

Well, assumming you already had the color monitor, a good b&w monitor is
$80-90, and a cheap video card (the one you piggy-back to your delux one)
will run you up to $65.  Total add-on to upgrade from whatever you have
to a two-monitor syustem in DOS is ~$150, all figures being somewhat rounded.
To trade in your current monitor and get a bigger one ... no figures, but
a vague grasp of monitor prices says that even without the double-paging
doohicky it will cost you much more.

   > Anyway, here are possible setups:
   > Monitor one    Monitor two
   > XGA            XGA

   (I don't think this will work)

   > 8514           VGA

   I've seen this. The VGA repeats the 8514 display in character mode. (Hence,
   it is just a duplicate of the same monitor) In graphics mode, the 8514
   dominates. You can't run both in graphics mode with Windows or OS/2. Sorry,
   it isn't the same thing.

   > VGA            EGA (or maybe MDA, monochrome text)

   I've seen this, too. EGA won't work. You have to use an MDA. That's a
   character interface only. Again, it isn't the same thing as multiple
   monitors on the Mac.

Hmm...  Seems to me that the doc file in 'MahJonng' says that the second
display is used to show graphically how many tiles are left.  I may be wrong,
seeing as how its been months since I read that.  However, my current video
card manual says that the second video card (should I choose to buy one)
would run in black&white-only graphics mode.  I take this as meaning that
something is limiting its pixel depth to two bits.  Whether or not DOS even
dreams of supporting this, however, is another question altogether...

   > Of course, I've never done any of this, but I've heard it done.  

   Well, I've seen the first two. I haven't heard of using two XGAs, and I
   feel that you'd probably run into an address conflict. So I doubt it
   would work. 

   > 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). 

   And that is exactly the problem.

The thing I don't get is *why* the limitation is still there.  Especcially
with the newfound popularity of Windows.  Of course, before Windows
a bigger monitor was usually a bad choice unless you were running simulation
games, which only recently became fast and smooth enough to support more
than basic graphics themselves.  I would expect to see this void filled
in the next few years within the pc industry as a whole, either by the
Intel-baseds learning how to map across monitors or by others taking their
place in the market.  To tell the truth, I had hoped for it with at least
*one* of the new os's coming out, but it seems even the mac-clone / catch-
all NT has missed this boat ...  oh, well.

		---- tomster@wpi.wpi.edu
--
/^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^\
|  The bleeding hearts and the artists  \ /  Words of Wisdom, Inc.            |
|  make their stand.  And when they've  / \  Thomas R. Dibble, esquire, C.E.O.|
|  given you their all, some stagger &  \ /  aka, The Tomster, Tomahawk, etc. |
|  fall,  after  all,  it's not  easy,  / \  send mail/ money to:             |
|  banging your heart against some mad  \ /  tomster@wpi.wpi.edu              |
|  bugger's wall. ---R. Waters, _Wall_  / \  (or don't send it at all)        |
\vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv/
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.advocacy