Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dual monitors

Expand Messages
  • mp_ctrl
    Has anyone used dual monitors with LB? (Win 98se in my case) Any special considerations? I would not think there would be any problems but inclined to ask.
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 2, 2004
    • 0 Attachment
      Has anyone used dual monitors with LB? (Win 98se in my case)
      Any special considerations?

      I would not think there would be any problems but inclined to ask.

      Thanks,
      Jim
    • David Speck
      Jim, I routinely use a Matrox G400 dual head video card in Win98SE for my LB development work. I move the editor and debugging windows to the right monitor
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 2, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        Jim,
        I routinely use a Matrox G400 dual head video card in Win98SE for my LB
        development work. I move the editor and debugging windows to the right
        monitor and let my output graphic window sit on the left side. Graphic
        output windows will stretch across two monitors without difficulty.
        Someday, I'd be interested to try sticking a pair of PCI dual head cards
        into a system to see if I could use 4 monitors at once. I believe that
        98SE will support 4 monitors, and XP will support up to 10 displays.

        I'll admit my understanding of the graphics windows is below
        rudimentary, but the setup works for me. I'm programming at a stage
        little more advanced than my old PL/1 Hollerith card decks, but the LB
        programs make the output files that I need.
        Dave

        mp_ctrl wrote:

        >Has anyone used dual monitors with LB? (Win 98se in my case)
        >Any special considerations?
        >
        >I would not think there would be any problems but inclined to ask.
        >
        >Thanks,
        >Jim
        >
        >
      • mp_ctrl
        Thank you :) Card decks .. I remem .. no I don t ;) I will be using the onboard video (128/16MB) and another (64/4) on a 1-slot PCI riser card (board only has
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 2, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          Thank you :)

          Card decks .. I remem .. no I don't ;)

          I will be using the onboard video (128/16MB) and another (64/4) on a
          1-slot PCI riser card (board only has one PCI slot). I saw dual head
          AGP cards but not PCI. Understoof there was a performance hit going
          thru PCI ??? I'll do the same thing you do also .. windows popping
          up all over full screen graphics .. aaargh! What I read agrees with
          you on 98 (4) .. but I "think" I saw a reference to more than 10 for
          2000 and above.

          Thanks again,
          Jim



          --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, David Speck
          <MedelecInstruments@D...> wrote:
          > Jim,
          > I routinely use a Matrox G400 dual head video card in Win98SE for
          my LB development work. I move the editor and debugging windows to
          the right monitor and let my output graphic window sit on the left
          side. Graphic output windows will stretch across two monitors
          without difficulty. Someday, I'd be interested to try sticking a
          pair of PCI dual head cards into a system to see if I could use 4
          monitors at once. I believe that 98SE will support 4 monitors, and
          XP will support up to 10 displays.
          >
          > I'll admit my understanding of the graphics windows is below
          rudimentary, but the setup works for me. I'm programming at a stage
          little more advanced than my old PL/1 Hollerith card decks, but the
          LB programs make the output files that I need.
          > Dave
        • David Speck
          Jim, Yes, there is a significant performance hit . I think that the slowest AGP card (AGP 1X) ran at twice the speed of a standard PCI card. Now, you can buy
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 2, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            Jim,
            Yes, there is a significant performance hit . I think that the slowest
            AGP card (AGP 1X) ran at twice the speed of a standard PCI card. Now,
            you can buy AGP cards that run at 4X, 8X or ?16X if the MB supports
            them. However, I know of no MBs that support more than one AGP slot.

            I have a Dual Xeon server @ 2.4 GHz that has no AGP slot, so I disabled
            the onboard no-name video chip and installed a Matrox G450 PCI Dual head
            (2x16 Meg). I don't do games, so rapid screen redraws are not an
            issue. The high performance CPU more than compensates for the slower
            video bus speed. Strip out all the unnecessary garbage in XP, and you
            will have very significant performance improvements. I only use XP
            'cause it allows operation of the dual Xeons. If you have access to
            older versions of NT4, I think that it also supports multiple CPUs,
            though I'm less sure on the multiple CRTs. Do an eBay search for
            "Matrox PCI" and you will find dozens of choices of cards.

            To simplify things, I'd try to use a dual head board instead of two
            different chipsets and driver DLLs. It will probably be a lot easier.
            You would take a performance hit and a memory space penalty if you have
            to load two different video drivers. I've found that Matrox drivers are
            rock solid. Perhaps not the absolute fastest in the benchmarks, but
            I've never had a problem with them, and I've done a lot of different
            systems.

            Dave

            >I will be using the onboard video (128/16MB) and another (64/4) on a
            >1-slot PCI riser card (board only has one PCI slot). I saw dual head
            >AGP cards but not PCI. Understoof there was a performance hit going
            >thru PCI ??? I'll do the same thing you do also .. windows popping
            >up all over full screen graphics .. aaargh! What I read agrees with
            >you on 98 (4) .. but I "think" I saw a reference to more than 10 for
            >2000 and above.
            >
          • Justin
            Well if the PCI Express (3rd Generation I/O - 3GIO) comes together like they are planning, you will be able to put a ~16Xto32X video card in each of the PCI
            Message 5 of 6 , Apr 2, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              Well if the PCI Express (3rd Generation I/O - 3GIO) comes
              together like they are planning, you will be able to put a ~16Xto32X
              video card in each of the PCI Express Slots on the motherboards.
              (Currently the best gamer cards sit in 8X AGP slots)
              Our 33mhz PCI bus speed has not changed since 486's, but will
              make an exponential leap when the PCI Express System hits the
              retail market.
              http://www.pcisig.com/home
              http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleID=1087
              http://www.anandtech.com/systems/showdoc.html?i=1830

              Back to LB! :o)

              Justin.

              ----- Original Message -----
              From: "David Speck" <MedelecInstruments@...>
              To: <libertybasic@yahoogroups.com>
              Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:25 PM
              Subject: Re: [libertybasic] Re: Dual monitors


              > Jim,
              > Yes, there is a significant performance hit . I think that the slowest
              > AGP card (AGP 1X) ran at twice the speed of a standard PCI card. Now,
              > you can buy AGP cards that run at 4X, 8X or ?16X if the MB supports
              > them. However, I know of no MBs that support more than one AGP slot.
            • mp_ctrl
              MB in question: http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll? ViewItem&category=51134&item=2796185685 Will be used as an embedded system. Jim ... slowest ... Now, ...
              Message 6 of 6 , Apr 3, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                MB in question:

                http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?
                ViewItem&category=51134&item=2796185685

                Will be used as an embedded system.

                Jim

                --- In libertybasic@yahoogroups.com, David Speck
                <MedelecInstruments@D...> wrote:
                > Jim,
                > Yes, there is a significant performance hit . I think that the
                slowest
                > AGP card (AGP 1X) ran at twice the speed of a standard PCI card.
                Now,
                > you can buy AGP cards that run at 4X, 8X or ?16X if the MB
                supports
                > them. However, I know of no MBs that support more than one AGP
                slot.
                >
                > I have a Dual Xeon server @ 2.4 GHz that has no AGP slot, so I
                disabled
                > the onboard no-name video chip and installed a Matrox G450 PCI Dual
                head
                > (2x16 Meg). I don't do games, so rapid screen redraws are not an
                > issue. The high performance CPU more than compensates for the
                slower
                > video bus speed. Strip out all the unnecessary garbage in XP, and
                you
                > will have very significant performance improvements. I only use XP
                > 'cause it allows operation of the dual Xeons. If you have access
                to
                > older versions of NT4, I think that it also supports multiple CPUs,
                > though I'm less sure on the multiple CRTs. Do an eBay search for
                > "Matrox PCI" and you will find dozens of choices of cards.
                >
                > To simplify things, I'd try to use a dual head board instead of two
                > different chipsets and driver DLLs. It will probably be a lot
                easier.
                > You would take a performance hit and a memory space penalty if you
                have
                > to load two different video drivers. I've found that Matrox
                drivers are
                > rock solid. Perhaps not the absolute fastest in the benchmarks,
                but
                > I've never had a problem with them, and I've done a lot of
                different
                > systems.
                >
                > Dave
                >
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.