Vista Monitors Unleashed

something tells me my manager won't authorize me to get 4 24" monitors!

ddv

Didn't really think to highly of this interview, to be honest.  Maybe it's because I already have my own dual-monitor setup, but it was just not interesting.

1.  He wouldn't even disclose the exact models of video card.  It's not that important I guess, but it seems he artificially stepped around it.

2.  Predicts that the majority of consumer systems will support 4 monitors in the lifetime of Vista.  Sorry, but the average consumer has no idea that any computer can do dual screens, let alone 4.  And most come with graphics systems built into the motherboard.  And multiple monitors serves no purpose for the vast majority of games.  Plainly not going to happen soon, if ever.

3.  No discussion of what could be better about Vista and multiple monitors.  For instance, why is the taskbar still limited to only one monitor?  Microsoft needs to either add the features that UltraMon has or else buy them out and integrate it.

4.  No discussion of how a programmer could benefit.  It's Microsoft, we know you have a lot of programmers...tell us how they use it.

5.  What actual new features does Vista give us over XP with regards to multiple monitors?  Everything I just saw looked the same as it is in Vista.

Please go for more depth in these stories.  Interview multiple people with different setups.  I honestly feel that I would have learned the same thing by seeing just a picture of his setup as I did watching the entire video.

The Windows Vista Team Blog covered this too a few weeks ago. However it was awesome to hear and see Jason talk you guys through the setup in the video. It is a pretty sweet setup. Not sure if I'd want 4 monitors though.

- Brandon

Agreed.

I can't even begin to articulate just how disguted I am with that setup. The costs.. in hardware, and POWER, How much does that ridiculous rig cost in electricity for just 1 week?!

Then I'd ask, what good is it all for if it's for a workstation? ridiculous.

I'd rather see polymer screens with a similar resolution and area. No idle power consumption especially for reading web pages and emails..

If you're watching videos most of the time fine but good lord I hope workstations aren't heading in that direction (no matter what I was thinking back when working at HP in the Fiorina days...).

Again once smart paper like polymer displays start hitting the market with a polymer screen and backlit (LED if anything), that could bring power consumption down to zero.. great.. otherwise that is a horrible setup for a workstation.

Try editing out overlong pauses to spare viewers the joy of finishing sentences several seconds before the guest? UGH.

Actually I wonder what it would take (CPU RAM and GPU) to drive Crackdown or Gears or Halo 3 or FM2 on that kind of a setup. At that ungodly resolution would those games look like actors think they do on uncompressed 1080p HDTV channels?

If you sit far enough back and have ridiculous amounts of RAM it shouldn't much matter.

And I wondered for a second if 24 inch monitors aren't too tall vertically.. But a friend of mine was playing company of heroes on his 30 inch dell (an impressive screen that by itself). 

So what about 4x 30 inch monitors running 2560 pixel tall instead of just 1920? That would be more impressive for VIsta DX10 Quad SLI/Crossfire gaming. 16 megapixels , or, 6400x2560, or 2 Giga pixels per second in 120 frames per second of video.. *swoon.

I remember NHK and their UHDTV at 7680x4320 (not supposed to be available for consumers for over a decade)... but Quad 30 inch screens running 6400x2560 is close yet is just so much over kill it isn't even funny.