Dual display navigation - New Scientist article

[axel77]

Originally Posted by Jadon

Yes, which suggests that when you need more than one screen, having only two is probably not going to be enough. Probably best to simply have multiple book slates than have dual-screen units. Reminds me of some Star Trek scenes where a character researching something would have a tabletop littered with PADDs...

I say all you ever need is 3 screens.

2 for comperative reading, 1 for browsing for documents.

I'm basing this proposition on a research done with x-rays examination. When they first created digital x-rays display screen, they looked on how the docters were working with traditional x-rays, there they had a panel to hold up to 10 x-rays picutures. So the techs gave them 10 digital screens.

Later someone really studied in detail how doctors worked, and they never referred to more than 2 pictures at once (to compare them). So in the new design they had 3 screens. 2 super-high-definition for the x-ray pictures, a third normal one to browse through the data to display, add comments, etc....

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by axel77

I say all you ever need is 3 screens.

2 for comparative reading, 1 for browsing for documents.

Whether that is sufficient depends on what you are doing. Matrox makes graphics cards than can support two, three, and even four monitors at once. They are beloved of folks like stock traders, who can have one screen devoted to real time quotes, another to a spreadsheet doing analysis, another to email and IM...

I use software on my PDA called Palm Bible+. PB+ has a split screen feature, allowing you to display two different versions of the text at a time, with synchronized scrolling so that each displays the same verses. It also supports foreign alphabets, so you can read the English version in one half, and Hebrew or Greek versions in the other.

Something like that would be superb on a dual screen display.
______
Dennis
(Who is not a believer in any religion, but is fascinated by the myriad forms in which the spiritual urge manifests itself, and has a number of sacred texts on his device.)

[axel77]

Originally Posted by DMcCunney

Whether that is sufficient depends on what you are doing. Matrox makes graphics cards than can support two, three, and even four monitors at once. They are beloved of folks like stock traders, who can have one screen devoted to real time quotes, another to a spreadsheet doing analysis, another to email and IM...

There are some things, where two screens really are a benefit, especially when you are comparing stuff, or doing stuff with data from something else (taking notes, debugging & codiging) ... etc. However some things are only in peoples heads, thinking the more screens the cooler. Like spreadsheets and emails... this one can easily achieved by multiple virtual screens... unless you have to write people about what you are seeing in a spreadsheet. Or so. But all this tasks always require at most 2 physical screens. I cannot think of any application where more than 3 physical screens are a real benefit. Virtual screens a lot can make sense, but for physicals...

[tirsales]

e.g. greater physical size. Having a 2x2 or 3x3 setting could be used to e.g. display larger maps.

[DMcCunney]

Originally Posted by axel77

There are some things, where two screens really are a benefit, especially when you are comparing stuff, or doing stuff with data from something else (taking notes, debugging & codiging) ... etc. However some things are only in peoples heads, thinking the more screens the cooler. Like spreadsheets and emails... this one can easily achieved by multiple virtual screens... unless you have to write people about what you are seeing in a spreadsheet. Or so. But all this tasks always require at most 2 physical screens. I cannot think of any application where more than 3 physical screens are a real benefit. Virtual screens a lot can make sense, but for physicals...

Depends on your application and your screen.

At home, I run a 19" monitor in 1600x1200 mode. I have one of the "dual head" Matrox cards, but don't have room for a second monitor. If I did, there would be another 19" screen next to it. I have virtual desktop software, but seldom use it. One big screen mostly suffices.

As a sysadmin, multiple screens can be a near necessity, especially with SSH sessions to half a dozen servers at once going.
______
Dennis

[axel77]

Originally Posted by tirsales

e.g. greater physical size. Having a 2x2 or 3x3 setting could be used to e.g. display larger maps.

In that case, I'd prefer one bigger screen

[tirsales]

@axel: Accepted. But OTOH most people wouldnt need a greater eReader - but still perhaps sometimes wish to display a larger map?

[moz]

For me the value would be paging alternately, and if one was a touch screen I can see value in writing notes next to the page I can see. Increased ruggedness when closed would be a bonus.