TheSwamp
CAD Forums => CAD General => Topic started by: hudster on January 12, 2007, 10:46:02 AM
-
I have a very average graphics card, a gforce 6600 LE, it does the job and the company won't buy me a new one.
Now this has two video connections, one for a digital display, which I use, and one for a VGA connection.
My question is can I use this setup for dual monitors? I have a spare dell E193fp monitor and would like to connect it to my PC and increase my screen area.
Is this possible?
-
Should work fine. Make sure you have the latest nvidia drivers installed...they should give you the "Nvidia Display Control Panel", which I have found the easiest way to configure dual displays with nvidia. If your two monitors are of different resolution, make sure that you choose the option to configure each monitor's settings separately, which in effect gives to separate desktops as opposed to one spanning desktop.
-
I have a Geforce 5700 at home running two monitors with no problem at all. Dual monitors rock! I would hate to go back to a single.
-
According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity
-
Sure. I don't have to minimize cad to see the Swamp. :evil:
-
According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity
Oh? Which?
-
Let me see if I can find the references for you.
-
Here you go ...
This (http://www.jonpeddie.com/special/MultDisp.shtml) is by a nationally recognized firm.
Of course that is a single reference and while it may not pass the definition of "most" ... I did a quick google .. and I was overwhelmed by the results, some referenced surveys by companies involved in production of monitors or hardware, so I would personally list them as somewhat dubious, but others referenced surveys done by universities across the US and Europe, namely University of Utah and University of Lancashire (sp). anyway, there is much more information than I could possibly hope to search through. Please be my guest and provide at least one contrasting survey.
-
Here you go ...
This (http://www.jonpeddie.com/special/MultDisp.shtml) is by a nationally recognized firm.
Of course that is a single reference and while it may not pass the definition of "most" ... I did a quick google .. and I was overwhelmed by the results, some referenced surveys by companies involved in production of monitors or hardware, so I would personally list them as somewhat dubious, but others referenced surveys done by universities across the US and Europe, namely University of Utah and University of Lancashire (sp). anyway, there is much more information than I could possibly hope to search through. Please be my guest and provide at least one contrasting survey.
Sorry Keith, NOTHING in that link states that dual monitors improve performance. (the full piece might but I'm not gonna pony up that price to find out) I've done a little research into dual monitors over the last couple of years and have yet to find definitive numbers that show unequivocally that performance is truly improved. Nearly all quote that the users "feel" more productive and/or say they are more productive, but the numbers just aren't there.
-
This is quoted from the survey summary that you erroniously asserted it said "NOTHING" when it obviously does.
Productivity estimations average to 42% improvement
The conclusion seems obvious, users will benefit from multiple displays ...
Your reponse is based on your own conjecure. Please supply at least one survey showing a contrasting point of view or concede the point.
-
*yawn*
-
You double monitor guy’s are so passé. You need at least 3 to be productive :-D
Seriously though, Everyone in my company has two monitors,
My studies have shown it’s worth the extra cost.
-
I have now set up the second monitor, man this is great, I have my palettes, properties dialogue, xref and command line on a different screen, so I have way more screen space available for CAD.
I've also set up my outlook to appear in the second monitor so I can monitor emails without having to keep minimising AutoCAD.
-
I have now set up the second monitor, man this is great, I have my palettes, properties dialogue, xref and command line on a different screen, so I have way more screen space available for CAD.
I've also set up my outlook to appear in the second monitor so I can monitor emails without having to keep minimising AutoCAD.
Will you guys just shut up!
You killing me here.
:-D :-D
The second monitor has to come out of my wallet.
And stuff keeps popping up on the home front that is preventing from me building up the cash. :realmad:
-
I have worked on computer that had dual monitors and quite frankly, I don't see the benefit, right off the bat.
Maybe a single monitor on a computer that isn't set up properly against a dual monitor on a computer that is set up properly will show better results, but the emphasis should be seen on the setup of the computer applications.
I don't have to minimize Autocad for ANYTHING. Why would you? Say I did, if I wanted to check another application... so what... it's not like you can type an email AND work in Autocad if you have dual monitors... dual monitors doesn't mean you can somehow suddenly provide dual input.
There's nothing a dual monitor can provide me that I don't have available to me on a regular monitor... web watching as Maverick mentioned... not important, but I do it, so I should consider it.... so... as far as web loading, a simply alt+tab and F5 tap isn't time consuming... especially considering that just because you have two monitors, it doesn't mean you still have to switch to the browser window and hit 'refresh' (unless you have an autorefresh addon activated, which can happen to either system)
As for email... I have that window set to popup any email notifications so i can see who it's from and then I can visually ((while working in cad) address whether Outlook needs my attention or not.
What else is there that dual monitors benefit, that a single cannot? Working space? Putting your tool pallettes, toolbars, buttons, etc on one? Why? I don't use buttons, and I only 2 rows of toolbars up... one row for the layer toolbar next to the workspace toolbar for quick switching... and one that has the 'new, open, save' etc next to a few random toolbars. Other than that everything is on tool pallettes on the left or right that AUTO Hide, leaving me with an estimate..1800x1100 pixel-area of working space, speaking conservatively.
What can a dual monitor offer me that single can't? My only guess is that you can have an excel spreadsheet up in one monitor and read it while inputting info into cad. I never do that, but I can see it's benefit... but when you can simply print the spreadsheet and have it sitting in front of your keyboard, or on a standing clipboard, I don't think I would have the gall to go to my boss and say "I want a brand new lcd monitor to replace this $8 clipboard" (although I don't have that $8 clipboard... I keep whatever sheet I'm working from between the keyboard and myself, on the desk. No probs there)
(edit) I know I sound of very strong opinion in those statements, but it just comes from long deliberation on the subject and having read quite a bit about the subject and I haven't found anything that tells me that it would be a good idea. I'm VERY open to someone showing me specific proof. I don't believe blanket statements of "40% improvement" because it doesn't break down WHAT improved... tell me HOW it improved or you're just bluffing, as far as I'm concerned.(/edit)
-
This is quoted from the survey summary that you erroniously asserted it said "NOTHING" when it obviously does.
Productivity estimations average to 42% improvement
The conclusion seems obvious, users will benefit from multiple displays ...
Your reponse is based on your own conjecure. Please supply at least one survey showing a contrasting point of view or concede the point.
Okay Keith, really read what is written there. No data is offered to support the claims. They even make sure to state that it is "estimations" and that "conclusions SEEM obvious". So my comment is quite accurate, there is NOTHING in that link that states dual monitors improve productivity. It is no different from any other report or study I've read. Each one boils down to "There's two monitors, therefore you must be more productive."
We've gone to dual monitors because our corporate office has standardized on PDS. Those of you familiar with PDS, know that this is not to improve productivity, but that it is nearly impossible to function at all with a single monitor due to the poor programing development of PDS. But that aside, it means that we have a lot of folks using two monitors, by the end of the second quarter this year, all designers should be running dual monitors. So far we have seen "zero" improvement in productivity for those using duals in an AutoCAD environment.
I was wandering through one of our large open areas looking at all the dual monitor setups just last week; of the three dozen setups I could see from one place, only one had spread AutoCAD onto both monitors, three used the second monitor for the AutoCAD text screen, the rest either had their email on the second screen, or the logo desktop that come with login. So I asked how they liked the dual screens. The all said they were great, improved performance, increased productivity, it was "obvious", so "obvious", even the guys that didn't use the second monitor reported being more productive.
-
Randy, as always, I appreciate your candor. Once again, you asked for a survey which supported the statement regarding multiple monitors and productivity increases. We can split hais about the accuracy of the surveys if you wish, but I DID supply you with at least one supporting survey. To that end, I have supported my comment in a manner consistent with your request. Essentially "this survey states that multiple monitors improve productivity" as indicated by the excerpt from the executive summary of the survey. If you do not accept the survey, then we can discuss whether the survey is accurate or conjecture, but you cannot argue that I did not support my statement by an outside source. I could however state that you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.
Once again, show me a survey that states there is NO productivity improvement by using multiple monitors and I will consider it a draw, since we both have opposing corroberating evidence. Or ... give it up already ... I could care less about whether they improve productivity .. in fact I believe the improvement is probably only in specialized applications and environments, I was merely stating a widely held belief, and then I supplied the evidence you requested.
-
FWIW,
From my own experience....my productivity has gotten better with dual monitors. More real estate to multitask more efficiently. I would never span both screens with AutoCAD, you get that annoying break between the screens. I've found having all the properties\SSM\xref palette on the other screen helps me out.
Ron
-
Randy, as always, I appreciate your candor. Once again, you asked for a survey which supported the statement regarding multiple monitors and productivity increases. We can split hais about the accuracy of the surveys if you wish, but I DID supply you with at least one supporting survey. To that end, I have supported my comment in a manner consistent with your request. Essentially "this survey states that multiple monitors improve productivity" as indicated by the excerpt from the executive summary of the survey. If you do not accept the survey, then we can discuss whether the survey is accurate or conjecture, but you cannot argue that I did not support my statement by an outside source. I could however state that you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry I missed the line in the link that stated ""this survey states that multiple monitors improve productivity". I read the summary and saw comments like "Estimate" and "seem", but NOTHING that "states that multiple monitors improve productivity". Would please point out the phrase I missed in the link?
Once again, show me a survey that states there is NO productivity improvement by using multiple monitors and I will consider it a draw, since we both have opposing corroberating evidence.
I have no such survey, nor have I claimed one existed, and so far you have not supplied such evidence supporting your claim other than saying "isn't it obvious?"
Or ... give it up already ... I could care less about whether they improve productivity ..
Your keyboard is in your control is it not?
in fact I believe the improvement is probably only in specialized applications and environments, I was merely stating a widely held belief,
And I have the audacity to question that "widely held belief".
and then I supplied the evidence you requested.
Not as yet.
-
From my own experience....my productivity has gotten better with dual monitors.
Oh? Could you show me some numbers?
More real estate to multitask more efficiently.
Okay there's a word I hear a lot, multitask, just how does that work? I only have one mouse and one keyboard, and I'm limited in that I can only do one thing at a time with my computer. How does this multitasking idea work?
I would never span both screens with AutoCAD, you get that annoying break between the screens.
Not so much spread the drawing screen, but move toolbars, pallettes, etc. to the other screen
I've found having all the properties\SSM\xref palette on the other screen helps me out.
Oh? How much? Any more than say a single wide-format monitor?
-
Randy, as always, I appreciate your candor. Once again, you asked for a survey which supported the statement regarding multiple monitors and productivity increases. We can split hais about the accuracy of the surveys if you wish, but I DID supply you with at least one supporting survey. To that end, I have supported my comment in a manner consistent with your request. Essentially "this survey states that multiple monitors improve productivity" as indicated by the excerpt from the executive summary of the survey. If you do not accept the survey, then we can discuss whether the survey is accurate or conjecture, but you cannot argue that I did not support my statement by an outside source. I could however state that you have not provided any evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry I missed the line in the link that stated ""this survey states that multiple monitors improve productivity". I read the summary and saw comments like "Estimate" and "seem", but NOTHING that "states that multiple monitors improve productivity". Would please point out the phrase I missed in the link?
Please .. I know you better than that .. If any survey unequivocably stated "this will improve productivity by 40%" or whatever, it would be immediately dismissed as it does not take into account any myriad of differences in applications, environment, people, and the task they are charged with doing. When making a blanket statement, the comments MUST be broad enough else they fail. An estimate of fuel economy is just that .. as estimate .. several factors can make the difference. We could drive the exact vehicle on the exact stretch of road and come away with vastly different fuel economys. You of all people should know that.
Once again, show me a survey that states there is NO productivity improvement by using multiple monitors and I will consider it a draw, since we both have opposing corroberating evidence.
I have no such survey, nor have I claimed one existed, and so far you have not supplied such evidence supporting your claim other than saying "isn't it obvious?"
You are dodging and we both know it ..
Or ... give it up already ... I could care less about whether they improve productivity ..
Your keyboard is in your control is it not?
I suppose your stubborness is fueling my desire .. I cannot help myself ... I must post.
in fact I believe the improvement is probably only in specialized applications and environments, I was merely stating a widely held belief,
And I have the audacity to question that "widely held belief".
Then you have convoluted the discussion. My point was not that muliple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys. Surveys that you choose to ignore. Fine .. but you cannot ignore the facts that it is a widely held belief .. which is EXACTLY what my comments were about, nothing more, nothing less.
and then I supplied the evidence you requested.
Not as yet.
You simply fail to recognize it when perhaps hundreds or thousands of others have. I am not saying your assertion concerning productivity is wrong, only that your assertion that the survey states they improve productivity. Your beef concerning the accuracy of the survey is with the survey company, not me.
-
Please .. I know you better than that .. If any survey unequivocably stated "this will improve productivity by 40%" or whatever, it would be immediately dismissed as it does not take into account any myriad of differences in applications, environment, people, and the task they are charged with doing. When making a blanket statement, the comments MUST be broad enough else they fail. An estimate of fuel economy is just that .. as estimate .. several factors can make the difference. We could drive the exact vehicle on the exact stretch of road and come away with vastly different fuel economys. You of all people should know that.
wait a minute, either the surveys support the increased productivity or they don't. An estimate is based on some data, any data. So far, every survey I've seen, including the summary you posted, has failed to provide such data because is "SEEMS" "OBVIOUS".
Once again, show me a survey that states there is NO productivity improvement by using multiple monitors and I will consider it a draw, since we both have opposing corroberating evidence.
I have no such survey, nor have I claimed one existed, and so far you have not supplied such evidence supporting your claim other than saying "isn't it obvious?"
You are dodging and we both know it ..
No dodge, I've never claimed any kind of survey existed either way. I'm just looking for one that shows any kind of improvement in productivity by methods other than "isn't it obvious"
in fact I believe the improvement is probably only in specialized applications and environments, I was merely stating a widely held belief,
And I have the audacity to question that "widely held belief".
Then you have convoluted the discussion. My point was not that muliple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys. Surveys that you choose to ignore. Fine .. but you cannot ignore the facts that it is a widely held belief .. which is EXACTLY what my comments were about, nothing more, nothing less.
I've always understood your point, that there are surveys that support the widely held belief. So far you have provided none.
and then I supplied the evidence you requested.
Not as yet.
You simply fail to recognize it when perhaps hundreds or thousands of others have. ... Your beef concerning the accuracy of the survey is with the survey company, not me.
I have no problem at all with the accuracy of a survey, especially those that couch their results in non-commital language like "seems obvious".. Support does not mean perpetuate. It's not that they are inaccurate, they just haven't displayed any foundation in real productivity research, they have provided no support. If there is a real productivity improvement, there will be numbers to back it up, otherwise we're left with feelings that it's obvious, which is not support.
I am not saying your assertion concerning productivity is wrong, only that your assertion that the survey states they improve productivity.
I've asked a couple of times for you to quote the line in the link you posted that states improved productivity. I've looked and can't find it. If it's there please post it.
-
For the love of all that is good ...
Productivity estimations average to 42% improvement
Now .. I didn't say it .. they did ...
-
For the love of all that is good ...
Productivity estimations average to 42% improvement
Now .. I didn't say it .. they did ...
yup, and I can ESTIMATE increases of minus thirty percent because it "SEEMS OBVIUOUS"
-
Not dual monitors but larger display which to me is the same thing...
images.apple.com/pro/pdf/Cin_Disp30_report.pdf
-
http://codebetter.com/blogs/darrell.norton/archive/2003/11/11/3432.aspx
* Productivity in lines of code per day increased 10%.
* Defect levels decreased by 26%.
-
Not dual monitors but larger display which to me is the same thing...
images.apple.com/pro/pdf/Cin_Disp30_report.pdf
Not bad! Some of their tests have some merit.
Hey Luis ... don't you have a big wide LCD sitting on your desk? How do you feel about it?
-
yup, and I can ESTIMATE increases of minus thirty percent because it "SEEMS OBVIUOUS"
You know, Randy, even though it says estimate, it's still in the positive. So whether the estimate is off by 41% either way, it's still an improvement.
Now, had they stated that it was an estimated 42% less productivity then you have have something there.
-
Where is the popcorn? :-)
-
Not dual monitors but larger display which to me is the same thing...
Oh no, not at all, there is a MAJOR cost difference. All our machines had cards that would support much larger monitors, but none that would have supported two monitors.
-
Oh no, not at all, there is a MAJOR cost difference. All our machines had cards that would support much larger monitors, but none that would have supported two monitors.
Dodge
-
Oh no, not at all, there is a MAJOR cost difference. All our machines had cards that would support much larger monitors, but none that would have supported two monitors.
Dodge
truck
ohh... not the word game thread
i miss my two monitors. while it might not have significantly made me work any faster, it did cut back on the frustration with all that extra space to watch movies while surfing the swamp, err... i mean draft and research without loosing my place as easily.
most modern video cards have two outputs, and if they don't there's always the ability to add a second video card... both of which can be done reasonably cheaply.
-
http://codebetter.com/blogs/darrell.norton/archive/2003/11/11/3432.aspx
* Productivity in lines of code per day increased 10%.
* Defect levels decreased by 26%.
Excellent some numbers finally. Was that ten percent net, gross, accounted for improved experience over the year? Comments on that link have been disabled.
-
Oh no, not at all, there is a MAJOR cost difference. All our machines had cards that would support much larger monitors, but none that would have supported two monitors.
Dodge
??? Oh how so? My major gripes with dual monitors is increased cost with little or no productivity gain and office "real estate". We can install wide-screens on our current machines without buying and installing new vid-cards and power boosters. Wide format monitors allow the extra toolbar bloat for "those" programs, to fill the additional wider space without the overhead of a second monitor. Where's the dodge??
-
i miss my two monitors. while it might not have significantly made me work any faster, it did cut back on the frustration with all that extra space to watch movies while surfing the swamp, err...
yep, what I thought
i mean draft and research without loosing my place as easily.
Lose your place?? wanna explain that one?
most modern video cards have two outputs, and if they don't there's always the ability to add a second video card... both of which can be done reasonably cheaply.
Lessee, second vid-card, plus the time to install it, plus the second monitor purchase price times five hundred users. Sorry that's not my definition of cheap.
-
Randy, depending upon your OS, it is entirely possible to drive 2 monitors with a single video card (yep .. a single card) What it takes is a special $19 splitter and a little know how ... anyone can have 2 monitors for a whole lot less than a larger one.
I can double my monitor space for the addition of a monitor. I can get a decent 20" monitor for just under $180. That means I have the equivalent of a 30"+ screen for a fifth of the cost of a 30" monitor.
I think you need a better argument. Since you wouldn't accept my survey I showed you, and finally there was one with regard to larger monitors, your position has changed to one of cost vs profit ... and since cost vs profit is a no brainer (if you were choosing to get a larger monitor vs a second monitor), you would by necessity have to choose the second monitor due to the sheer cost savings to getting a larger one.
-
Was that ten percent net, gross, accounted for improved experience over the year? Comments on that link have been disabled.
What does it matter if it is net, gross, or whatever? It is increase performance.
Lines of code per day. Decreased defects
And what difference does it make that comments are disabled? So then you could use someone's anonymous comments to disprove the results?
Up until now you were just asking for a study with actual numbers to substantiate increased productivity. Something is provided that actually shows that your theory of dual monitors a.k.a more monitor space does nothing for productivity could be hooey and you veer off on another tangent to keep debating.
Oh, wait..... I see a backpedal....
My major gripes with dual monitors is increased cost with little or no productivity
O.k. then. Now that we have acquired some basis that a second monitor can increase productivity now we will move into whether it justifies the cost. Everyone keeping up with Randy now? *Tour guide* " We're moving, we're moving"
We can install wide-screens on our current machines without buying and installing new vid-cards and power boosters. Wide format monitors allow the extra toolbar bloat for "those" programs, to fill the additional wider space without the overhead of a second monitor.
Granted a quick google but a 30" goes for roughly $1900. I have an Nvidia card at home that retails for roughly $160 that runs two monitors just fine while making and moving a rendered 3d model. I'll go high on a 19" lcd and say $350.
$1900 < $510 + (again figuring high) 1 hour labor. :?
Dang my slow typing!! Keith stole my thunder. I guess that's payback for plagarism. :-D
-
i mean draft and research without loosing my place as easily.
Lose your place?? wanna explain that one?
most of what i do is copy then modify... having a digital copy (pdf) on one monitor and cad/word/excel open in the next is alot nicer than printing a copy out and riffling through papers, or atl-tabbing my way through windows, which is where i tend to loose my place... it's just nicer
most modern video cards have two outputs, and if they don't there's always the ability to add a second video card... both of which can be done reasonably cheaply.
Lessee, second vid-card, plus the time to install it, plus the second monitor purchase price times five hundred users. Sorry that's not my definition of cheap.
if you have five hundred users, i'd expect you could invest alittle in them, if not what's the name of the company.... cause that isn't one i'd even return a call to.
where i'm at the dualies came with the new computers, we have 4 sets that get rotated.... old computers out, new ones in. 125 upgrades while you are upgrading already
-
most of what i do is copy then modify... having a digital copy (pdf) on one monitor and cad/word/excel open in the next is alot nicer than printing a copy out and riffling through papers, or atl-tabbing my way through windows, which is where i tend to loose my place... it's just nicer
Most of what I do is like UCP. I often am referecning PDF's, Jpeg's, Excel to do my drawings. I'm with paperless and don't want to print out hundreds of sheets of paper. Plus the searching features in excel make it mush faster to find numbers etc. That is up on my second screen.
Where I use to work. I use to always be in/out of windows explorer, ftp sites, website etc and having full screen accessibility to two different directories, ftp sites is invaluable. Sometimes I'd have 6 or 8 different folders moving stuff around.
I have no hard facts/statistics and I could see the standpoint of a large company trying to justify the cost. There are cheaper alternatives, but in the end, it still costs something and an analysis on Return of Investment has to be done to convince management that it is worth the investment.
Pieter
-
most of what i do is copy then modify... having a digital copy (pdf) on one monitor and cad/word/excel open in the next is alot nicer than printing a copy out and riffling through papers, or atl-tabbing my way through windows, which is where i tend to loose my place... it's just nicer
Most of what I do is like UCP. I often am referecning PDF's, Jpeg's, Excel to do my drawings. I'm with paperless and don't want to print out hundreds of sheets of paper. Plus the searching features in excel make it mush faster to find numbers etc. That is up on my second screen.
Where I use to work. I use to always be in/out of windows explorer, ftp sites, website etc and having full screen accessibility to two different directories, ftp sites is invaluable. Sometimes I'd have 6 or 8 different folders moving stuff around.
I could see your position, there, being a great point in a pro-case for dual monitors... that situation there seems logical to me to benefit from the use of dual monitors.
I know a very important thing that affects productivity, efficiency, and accuracy of information input is 'stream of consciousness' as I like to call it. If your mind is holding onto the concept of an abstract idea or thought or design, and it has to allocate some brain power to reading through something else on paper, trying to find the line where the info is... or looking for the window the other sheet is... well... short term memory only lasts so long, and inevitably that abstract thought/idea/design that is so tenderly and finitely apperant within your skull is suddenly slipping through the fingers of your axions as you desperately try to manage your files and information to quickly procure the proper documentation to produce the exact depiction of your thoughts... if that thought is lost/broken/put-off ... then.. well...your brain is starting over again to regain that thought after you get your paperwork or Windows windows sorted.
Whereas with dual-monitors, I can see it being a lot easier as virtually no brain power is needed to glance to the right to look at your spreadsheet etc. as you can most likely tile 4 windows safely on a decent sized screen with enough room to clearly read all.
-
Randy, depending upon your OS, it is entirely possible to drive 2 monitors with a single video card (yep .. a single card) What it takes is a special $19 splitter and a little know how
Cool, show me how.
... anyone can have 2 monitors for a whole lot less than a larger one.
Oh? tell me how to get two monitors cheaper than getting one?? All the wide formats I'm looking at are only about thirty-five percent more than a standard format monitor, so two would be a lot more than one.
I can double my monitor space for the addition of a monitor. I can get a decent 20" monitor for just under $180. That means I have the equivalent of a 30"+ screen for a fifth of the cost of a 30" monitor.
If you count the space of the original monitor, you have to count its cost as well. And I don't know about your office, but we don't have an office that will fit two 20" CRT type monitors and still have room for a user. But that aside, your scenerio has just spent around two hundred dollars on hardware and probably another fifty bucks on installation... for what in return? That's why I'm looking for something that gives real numbers for ROI. Our own tests here on a small sample of users indicated very little if any real production advantage with two monitors.
I think you need a better argument.
If you'll go back through this thread you'll find that I'm not arguing, but looking for solid data on the production value of two monitors. Saying it's "obvious" is NOT data.
Since you wouldn't accept my survey I showed you,
Oh I accepted it, it just doesn't say what you thought it did.
and finally there was one with regard to larger monitors, your position has changed to one of cost vs profit ...
That's always been the point. Why spend money if there is NO apprecable improvement in productivity?
and since cost vs profit is a no brainer (if you were choosing to get a larger monitor vs a second monitor), you would by necessity have to choose the second monitor due to the sheer cost savings to getting a larger one.
Again you've missed the point fairly wide. You're assuming, in error, that we're adding monitors to existing machines. The choice is buying two monitors (plus hardware) as opposed to buying one monitor. So far, I haven't found a case where two are cheaper than one.
-
Where is the popcorn? :-)
Anybody want some popcorn?
I got one of those giant buckets with lots of butter. You will have to go get yourself a drink though.
:-) :-)
-
What does it matter if it is net, gross, or whatever? It is increase performance.
Lines of code per day. Decreased defects
And what difference does it make that comments are disabled? So then you could use someone's anonymous comments to disprove the results?
The existing comments were still viewable, but I could no longer make a comment or ask questions about his study. Like, did he take into account that a years worth of experience should produce similar results, increased productivity and decreased defects. Wouldn't you like to know the basis for the numbers or do you just take everything you read on the 'net as fact?
Up until now you were just asking for a study with actual numbers to substantiate increased productivity. Something is provided that actually shows that your theory of dual monitors a.k.a more monitor space does nothing for productivity could be hooey and you veer off on another tangent to keep debating.
Well there were actual numbers in that post, but where was the data, how were those numbers collected, determined? What methods were employed to allow for normal learning improvements, what specifically contributed to the decreased defect rate? What was the original benchmark based on? You know, a real study.
And its no tangent, that's always been my position. I started out just asking for the data, because I have spent some time digging through the internet looking for real data to justify two monitors and have come up empty. I've found a lot (tons, it's "obvious") of anecdotal information, like what been provided here so far, but nothing that would pass a bean-counter. If I have no real data supporting an increase in production why spend the money?
Oh, wait..... I see a backpedal....
Oh? How so?
O.k. then. Now that we have acquired some basis that a second monitor can increase productivity
Sorry, not as yet. Unless you wish to believe everything posted on the internet without substantiation. Personally I choose to wait for real data.
now we will move into whether it justifies the cost. Everyone keeping up with Randy now? *Tour guide* " We're moving, we're moving"
I’m not. If you’re having trouble keeping up I can type slower.
Granted a quick google but a 30" goes for roughly $1900.
Who said anything about a 30”?
I have an Nvidia card at home that retails for roughly $160 that runs two monitors just fine while making and moving a rendered 3d model. I'll go high on a 19" lcd and say $350.
$1900 < $510 + (again figuring high) 1 hour labor. :?
Umm… math not your strong suit, eh? Two nineteen inch monitors would be seven hundred plus the card and you’re around eight-sixty. Our supplier can get us into dual nineteen’s for just under seven hundred, including card and labor. We can get a twenty inch wide format for around three fifty or a twenty-four inch for around six seventy-five.
Dang my slow typing!! Keith stole my thunder. I guess that's payback for plagarism. :-D
You guys seem to think the first monitor is free. Did you get yours free? If so where, cause we’ve had to pay for all of ours.
-
What size monitors do your people have on average?
-
What size monitors do your people have on average?
Right now, a little over half of the design staff are using twenty-one inch standard width monitors, about twenty-five percent are using twenty-one inch wide format, and the rest are using dual nineteens. The non-CAD users are running single nineteen inch standard width monitors.
-
Show me a study that proves every one of those users are more productive than if they were using a 15" CRT. And make sure it justifies the cost of the larger monitors vs. the smaller ones.
-
Randy, depending upon your OS, it is entirely possible to drive 2 monitors with a single video card (yep .. a single card) What it takes is a special $19 splitter and a little know how
Cool, show me how.
Dual monitor splitter available from Dell just plug it into the video output of the card and plug in the monitors to the cable. Setup the seperate desktops in Windows in the display properties.
... anyone can have 2 monitors for a whole lot less than a larger one.
Oh? tell me how to get two monitors cheaper than getting one?? All the wide formats I'm looking at are only about thirty-five percent more than a standard format monitor, so two would be a lot more than one.
1-30" monitor = $1900
2-20" monitors + splitter = $420
Huge cost savings for more real estate.
Don't take my word for it, look up and compare the prices yourself ...
I can double my monitor space for the addition of a monitor. I can get a decent 20" monitor for just under $180. That means I have the equivalent of a 30"+ screen for a fifth of the cost of a 30" monitor.
If you count the space of the original monitor, you have to count its cost as well. And I don't know about your office, but we don't have an office that will fit two 20" CRT type monitors and still have room for a user. But that aside, your scenerio has just spent around two hundred dollars on hardware and probably another fifty bucks on installation... for what in return? That's why I'm looking for something that gives real numbers for ROI. Our own tests here on a small sample of users indicated very little if any real production advantage with two monitors.
Estimates range to 42% improvement in productivity
Defects lowered by 26%
lines of code increased by 10%
Sorry, but those don't qualify as little benefit. True story .. a contractor I did some work for some years ago did manual data entry, I wrote a piece of software to do it, but the numbers kept coming out different than the ones the employees were doing manually so the company wouldn't purchase it. The cost benefit ratio didn't make sense to them. In the end the program proved to be correct as after they ran a batch of 10000 milled aluminum valve bodies with the wrong information. They had to be scrapped and cost them weeks of down time as well as the production cost of the billets that had to be destroyed.
The point it, it is very difficult to put a tangible number to the prevention of an error. A single error can cost nothing, or it can cost hundreds of millions of dollars damage or worse lost lives. How can you put a value on that?
If I was shown that doing something would reduce my error rate by 26%, I would do it. My reputation is worth a whole lot more than the cost of a few monitors. But then the big coperate guys don't think like that.
I think you need a better argument.
If you'll go back through this thread you'll find that I'm not arguing, but looking for solid data on the production value of two monitors. Saying it's "obvious" is NOT data.
How can an individual prove an intangible? How do you assign data to something that is difficult to quantify at best? If an employee is happy, they are more productive, that has been proven over and over again... for proof, go to the local Walmart or fast food joint ... see how much help you get from an unhappy employee, then compare that to a happy one. Then make your own judgement.
Since you wouldn't accept my survey I showed you,
Oh I accepted it, it just doesn't say what you thought it did.
Oh .. it said exactly what I said it did ... you just chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your argument.
and finally there was one with regard to larger monitors, your position has changed to one of cost vs profit ...
That's always been the point. Why spend money if there is NO apprecable improvement in productivity?
No, originally you wanted to know what surveys showed increased productivity. The cost benefit analysis came after your started back peddling
and since cost vs profit is a no brainer (if you were choosing to get a larger monitor vs a second monitor), you would by necessity have to choose the second monitor due to the sheer cost savings to getting a larger one.
Again you've missed the point fairly wide. You're assuming, in error, that we're adding monitors to existing machines. The choice is buying two monitors (plus hardware) as opposed to buying one monitor. So far, I haven't found a case where two are cheaper than one.
Well, previously you said you had 500 users ... are we to presume these guys do it all by hand now? I doubt that ... so if they do it now already using computers, you already have 500 monitors, thus you don't need to buy 2 each, just 1 each. Your excuses are beginning to get so convoluted and intertwined that you are making less and less sense as this discussion continues.
-
.... but nothing that would pass a bean-counter.
B&M Beans (http://www.famousfoods.com/bmbabeneweng.html) is right up the road from me. Send your beans counters there and they would be in their glory :-)
-
B&M Beans is right up the road from me.
You're like pop up video my man! :-)
-
B&M Beans is right up the road from me.
You're like pop up video my man! :-)
I can't help it, I really can't.
I try to, honestly I do.
:evil:
-
Lessee, second vid-card, plus the time to install it, plus the second monitor purchase price times five hundred users. Sorry that's not my definition of cheap.
Two questions Randy.
First; are you Union shop?
Second; are you using "statistical process control"?
-
Dual monitor splitter available from Dell just plug it into the video output of the card and plug in the monitors to the cable. Setup the seperate desktops in Windows in the display properties.
Cool, I'll check it out.
1-30" monitor = $1900
2-20" monitors + splitter = $420
Huge cost savings for more real estate.
Don't take my word for it, look up and compare the prices yourself ...
Again with the thirty inch. BTW, I do very little these days except compare prices for myself.
Estimates range to 42% improvement in productivity
Defects lowered by 26%
lines of code increased by 10%
Sorry, but those don't qualify as little benefit....
...
If I was shown that doing something would reduce my error rate by 26%, I would do it.
So you believe every "increased productivity" claim on the internet and implement it without checking the data? Are you sure you want to stick with that concept? Cuz' if you do, I can make some serious money. Or is it you believe the only ones that support your preconceptions?
If I was shown that doing something would reduce my error rate by 26%, I would do it.
I have a program that will reduce your error rate by eighteen percent or more. Send me four hundred dollars and I'll mail it to you. OOhhh, you want me to SHOW you something.... me too.
My reputation is worth a whole lot more than the cost of a few monitors. But then the big coperate guys don't think like that.
Oh we do, we just prefer some level of fact to support a claim before we throw money at it.
How can an individual prove an intangible?
Productivity is very tangible. The claim above of ten percent increased productivity and twenty-six percent reduction in defects is a tangible result. I just want to know where those number came from and how much TP was required to cleann them up.
How do you assign data to something that is difficult to quantify at best?
Wait a minute, are you now questioning the posted results you want me to swallow without question?
If an employee is happy, they are more productive, that has been proven over and over again...
And we can make employees happy any number of ways. This goes directly to my questioning of the results posted. His claim of increased productivity and decreased defects was based solely on dual monitors, but what else went on during that year? Like reducing a work week from seventy hours to fifty or having a free lunch every other Thursday. Employee morale is a big issue, but it is not had ONLY at the implementation of dual monitors. If an employee is unhappy over his insurance coverage, dual monitors will do little to improve his mood.
Oh .. it said exactly what I said it did ... you just chose to ignore it as it didn't fit your argument.
It makes a claim with no support, I asked for support, not claims.
No, originally you wanted to know what surveys showed increased productivity.
You said that surveys had proved that dual monitors increased productivity, I asked "Oh? Which?"
The cost benefit analysis came after your started back peddling
Sorry I didn't give a life history with my original question, but I'm still forward peddling. You seem to think hat my interest in this topic begins and ends with this thread. Sorry to disappoint, but I've been looking into this for a couple of years now trying to justify buying two monitors. You of all people on this forum should know that everything I do has a cost-benefit analysis connected to it somewhere along the way.
So far, I haven't seen any survey that proves increased productivity. Our small sample survey a couple of years ago produced a very small increase in production, but there were too many other factors that would have accounted for that blip to lay the benefit on dual monitors. If realize no benefit in dual monitors, why spend the money?
Well, previously you said you had 500 users ... are we to presume these guys do it all by hand now? I doubt that ... so if they do it now already using computers, you already have 500 monitors, thus you don't need to buy 2 each, just 1 each. Your excuses are beginning to get so convoluted and intertwined that you are making less and less sense as this discussion continues.
The bulk of those monitors are over three years old. We replace between ten and fifteen machines a month, updating our entire inventory every forty-six to fifty months, give or take. Our average use-life for monitors is right at four years (LCDs are doing a lot better than that), so the rotation is just about right. We don't/won't add second monitors to existing stations, (especially if there is no benefit in the effort), we replace the older systems with new hardware including monitors.
-
Two questions Randy.
First; are you Union shop?
Second; are you using "statistical process control"?
NO, and sorta, kinda, to a degree. In the shop, we employ primarily a modified TQM strategy that measures success implementing modified SPC techniques increasing the usual sampling rate by a factor of two to four depending on product line. On the engineering side we use CPM to manage progress and a similar modified TQM strategy for quality control, at some points increasing sampling rates to one-hundred percent. One of our new quality engineers thinks we've sorta happened upon a modified "Six Sigma" methodology.
-
Two questions Randy.
First; are you Union shop?
Second; are you using "statistical process control"?
NO, and sorta, kinda, to a degree. In the shop, we employ primarily a modified TQM strategy that measures success implementing modified SPC techniques increasing the usual sampling rate by a factor of two to four depending on product line. On the engineering side we use CPM to manage progress and a similar modified TQM strategy for quality control, at some points increasing sampling rates to one-hundred percent. One of our new quality engineers thinks we've sorta happened upon a modified "Six Sigma" methodology.
Ahh Memories.
-
Show me a study that proves every one of those users are more productive than if they were using a 15" CRT. And make sure it justifies the cost of the larger monitors vs. the smaller ones.
Bump
-
Ahh Memories.
When the thirty-thousand pound bowling ball gets rolling, changing its direction can prove lethal.
-
Show me a study that proves every one of those users are more productive than if they were using a 15" CRT. And make sure it justifies the cost of the larger monitors vs. the smaller ones.
Bump
We went to nineteens when our supplier could give 'em to us for the same cost as fifteens. Replaced the nineteens with twenty ones for the same reason. We could maybe save a little now going back to fifteens but that would probably be detrimental to morale.
But to answer your question, I don't have one.
To be real clear here to everyone, I have no surveys (other than our own) that make any claims of anything at all at any time, nor have I ever claimed to possess a survey that made any claim one way or the other. Someone else claimed that surveys proved increased productivity with dual monitors, I just wanted to see it. So far it hasn't been posted. We've seen some anecdotes, but no proof.
-
Show me a study that proves every one of those users are more productive than if they were using a 15" CRT. And make sure it justifies the cost of the larger monitors vs. the smaller ones.
Bump
I can't believe it! :-o :-o
Maverick just un-hijacked a thread.
Let be known on this day; the 16th of January, the year of out lord (or Yours) 2007, That Maverick stop a hijacking a thread that was in progress. There was great rejoicing in all of the land & waters known as the TheSwamp.
:-D :-D
-
To be real clear here to everyone, I have no surveys (other than our own) that make any claims of anything at all at any time, nor have I ever claimed to possess a survey that made any claim one way or the other.
This makes it very easy to maintain your position. It's very easy to look at any information given and discredit it. It is more difficult to come up with conflicting information that disproves the other. You will never find a report, survey, or finding of any kind that you can't say " there is information missing so it must be bunk".
What color was Newton's apple? What kind of shoes was Aristotle wearing when he "proved" the earth was round?
Your comments argue that dual monitors do not increase productivity and are not worth the money. But yet you take the easy route and challenge others to come up with the data that is impossible to get given your standards.
If you don't claim anything you can't be called out on it. Convenient for you.
Or you could provide "your" surveys. That we could discredit just as easily.
-
Sorry, not as yet. Unless you wish to believe everything posted on the internet without substantiation. Personally I choose to wait for real data.
I have hard proof here on my desk from an accredited survey/research firm.
I'd post the data, but I can't because it would then be posted on the internet, which you state doesn't make it true. :laugh:
-
I have hard proof here on my desk from an accredited survey/research firm.
But then you posted this. So I don't believe you.
-
It's very easy to look at any information given and discredit it.
I have never discredited data, just assumption with no data.
Your comments argue that dual monitors do not increase productivity and are not worth the money.
hmmm... where do I post that? I have never claimed that they don't or aren't. You seem to equate questioning conclusions with claims of opposition, sorry, but that is inaccurate.
But yet you take the easy route and challenge others to come up with the data that is impossible to get given your standards.
Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity, I asked for those surveys. What I got were unsupported statements that it was so. Tell me, do you believe every statement you read on the internet? Or do you require a little more data than, "it's obvious"?
If you don't claim anything you can't be called out on it. Convenient for you.
Why would I need to claim something to ask for something? If you ask for a cheesecake recipe do you HAVE to make some opposing claim so you can "be called out on it"? What the heck kind of logic is that? Wait a minute strike that question, I'd have to come up with an opposing view so I could be called out on it.
Or you could provide "your" surveys. That we could discredit just as easily.
Ours was inconclusive, even we discredit it.
We measured several known producers and marked each user's production rates on three separate, but similar, contracts, one single monitor, one dual, and another single.
They all knew we were measuring their productivity every time. On the whole the numbers were nearly flat, with a very slight increase with duals, around 0.02%
What made the blip in productivity was also interesting. While everyone else's productivity was very flat, two folks showed a marked jump in productivity, nearly 5 times the gains of the next highest producer.
While their productivity gains were 5 times the next guy, it was still less than 9% for one and 10% for the other. One had a two week vacation in the middle of the dual test and the other had a divorce just before the dual test. We interviewed them about their techniques and found nothing outstanding.
All the participants were above average producers to start with, so a poor starting point was disqualified as a cause. All were self-starting, pretty hard working people so we discounted the "watching/sand-bag" factor as well.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
One odd (maybe not so) thing we found by accident last year. Our internet service was down for 3 weeks one month, and we saw a 7% bump in productivity across the board. That one comes up in a meeting every now and then.
-
Sorry, not as yet. Unless you wish to believe everything posted on the internet without substantiation. Personally I choose to wait for real data.
I have hard proof here on my desk from an accredited survey/research firm.
Then post it.
I'd post the data, but I can't because it would then be posted on the internet, which you state doesn't make it true. :laugh:
Well just posting it on the internet DOESN'T make it true does it? (Do you believe everything on the 'net?) Nor does it make the information false. What would determine that is the data that supports the claim either way, data that can be substantiated. You know, the "hard proof" you claim to have... ... but then you know and I surmise that statement is one of "those" internet statements.
-
When are you guys gonna realize that once Randy's mind is made up.....arguing with him is like striking a conversation with a corpse....er Cadaver. :-D
Ron
-
One odd (maybe not so) thing we found by accident last year. Our internet service was down for 3 weeks one month, and we saw a 7% bump in productivity across the board. That one comes up in a meeting every now and then.
:-D :-D :-D
Randy,the jump in the numbers because since you could not debate anybody, you had to do real work.
But truth be told we have same issue here even out right complaining that the internet is down.
:-D :-D :-D
-
When are you guys gonna realize that once Randy's mind is made up.....arguing with him is like striking a conversation with a corpse....er Cadaver. :-
Gee Ron, that was my whole point in my first response to this thread. My mind isn't made up, I'm looking for the proof that was claimed to be had. If I had the proof, we'd have had dual monitors on every station long ago. I keep hearing from folks, like EVERYONE posting here so far, that it is sooooo much more productive, but when pushed to back the statement up, the best I get is "it's obvious" or "its estimated that...".
When I go to the boss and tell him I need to spend an extra two hundred thousand dollars next year, he's going to want to know two things; "Why?", and "What's the pay-out?". If I answer; "to put two monitors on every station" and "Isn't it obvious?", he'll be less than pleased and I won't get the money.
BTW, I personally prefer wide-format, but I have a mobility issue that most folks don't.
-
Actually I don't know if they are better myself. I still use a single 19" CRT.
I just think that some of the "proof" you are looking for HAS been posted, but it's not the type of proof you are looking for.
You are looking for hard numbers that really can not be gotten as the change from day to day, week to week.
Also with all the factors that figure in, you can never really get any accurate data.
Now if you ask whether a person feels more productive and thus is a happier employee, that in itself creates improved performance.
With the number of people backing the claim that dual monitors improves performance, you get the data you need to know that it's true. No truer data then what this thread is.
-
Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity
No, see .. you are mistaken once again ...
Somebody posted
According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity
Here (http://According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity) is the link, just in case you wish to retract the several times you have erroniously made this assertion.
Regardless of the quality of the surveys, regardless of the quality of the data or lack thereof, my statement was 100% true and correct. The surveys STILL state there is an increase in productivity. I cannot attest to the veracity of their statements, only that they have been made.
To that end, I could care less if duals increase productivity or if it gives employees a better chance to screw around. I never claimed they increased productivity. You have failed numerous times to accept that assertion. Had I made the claim that dual monitors did in fact improve productivity, then I would expect that I would be asked to provide data and specifics about how the data was gathered and how it was analyzed, but I did none of that and I made no claims. As always your issue is with the purveyors of the surveys, not me.
Well, previously you said you had 500 users ... are we to presume these guys do it all by hand now? I doubt that ... so if they do it now already using computers, you already have 500 monitors, thus you don't need to buy 2 each, just 1 each. Your excuses are beginning to get so convoluted and intertwined that you are making less and less sense as this discussion continues.
The bulk of those monitors are over three years old. We replace between ten and fifteen machines a month, updating our entire inventory every forty-six to fifty months, give or take. Our average use-life for monitors is right at four years (LCDs are doing a lot better than that), so the rotation is just about right. We don't/won't add second monitors to existing stations, (especially if there is no benefit in the effort), we replace the older systems with new hardware including monitors.
Here again, you are changing your statements ... before you had issues with buying 2 monitors and a video card ... then it was shown that a special video splitter cable will allow 2 monitors on the same cable ... fine .. you still have to buy 2 monitors ... ok ... but you have 1 monitor already .. no .. you buy new equipment all at once .. fine, then if that is the case, you have killed several of your own points with regard to the opposition of having 2 monitors,
a) Manufacturers such as HP and Dell already include dual head video cards as a default on workstations (kills argument for having to buy a video card and have it installed)
b) You are already buying the hardware (kills argument on having to buy 2 monitors, as 1 will come with the system, unless you buy computers without monitors)
c) You already have to pay someone to setup and install the hardware (kills the high labor cost associated with installing a new monitor and video card or splitter on an older system and having to make it work)
d) The equipment is a depreciable asset that will cost the company about 51% of the sticker price. (Projected cost for a second 20" flat panel after tangible savings from tax writeoffs is about $98)
e) Projected improvement in productivity (by your own numbers) 0.02%
Lets see ...
500 users
Assuming a $100 billable rate 20 hours weekly per user (you can plug in your own numbers) assuming 2 weeks vacation per year per user
20X100X500X50 = $52,000,000 revenue generated
Lets assume an employee cost of $30 per hour
30x40x500x52 = $31,200,000 employee cost
Add a 0.02% productivity improvement
Billable time increases from 500,000 hours to 500,100 hours. An increase of $10,000 per year of billable time.
The average monitor will have a life span of 4 years
$10000X4 = $40k
Net cost of purchase $49k
Final expense = $2250 per year ($4.50 per employee per year)
Furthermore, you will likely attain a much more favorable number of billable hours, likely in the 30 to 35 hour range, meaning that even a small improvement as little as 0.02% can reap positives on the bottom line beginning in the first year. Then lets add another discount on the cost of the equipment (I figured at retail) because you will be buying in large quanities and will be able to command a much lower price .. perhaps as much as 10% ... then given the above scenario, you will be making about $5 per user per year over the life of the monitor. (not to mention the income generated from the secondary market for the monitors after you take them out of service).
If you have anything that shows a productivity improvement, even as little as 0.02%, you would be stupid to throw away the opportunity to get it.
-
I just think that some of the "proof" you are looking for HAS been posted, but it's not the type of proof you are looking for.
No proof has been posted, just statements that they are.
You are looking for hard numbers that really can not be gotten as the change from day to day, week to week.
Sure they can, you just have to sample over a much longer period.
Also with all the factors that figure in, you can never really get any accurate data.
all those same factors affect the productivity of every job and must be accurately forcast, tracked, managed, and reported
Now if you ask whether a person feels more productive and thus is a happier employee, that in itself creates improved performance.
Happier employees can be had a lot cheaper than a second monitor.
With the number of people backing the claim that dual monitors improves performance, you get the data you need to know that it's true. No truer data then what this thread is.
So your position is that if enough people say it's true, then its automatically true?? ...okay.
-
So your position is that if enough people say it's true, then its automatically true?? ...okay.
Depends on the situation, but yeah.
OH and I now have first hand experience that employees can NOT be happier at a cheaper cost.
-
At home, I have one 20" and one 17" monitor. At work, it's just a single 20".
For general use, I find that I prefer my setup at home, with two monitors, but it doesn't really seem to cause much difference as far as general productivity. It is just a lot nicer, and I like it a lot more. The trick I mentioned (probably in the thread about Lessons Learned from C3D) of pulling in the left and right sides of the main window, and then placing Palettes in the gap and setting them to Autohide, works well. It is sometimes too-easy to unroll a Palette I'm not interested in, but in general, it works almost as well as the two-monitor setup.
Where that really changes is when I'm writing something like an Article explaining how to use some aspect of some program or other, or when answering questions on forums like this. I like being able to open Land Desktop or C3D on one monitor, while my web browser or editor is on the other monitor. That setup makes a SIGNIFICANT difference - it is much easier to write what I'm writing when I can see the example as I write, rather than constantly moving windows to the front or back. It might make a 2x improvement, but that's probably stretching it.
-
Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity
No, see .. you are mistaken once again ...
Somebody posted
According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity
Here (http://According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity) is the link, just in case you wish to retract the several times you have erroniously made this assertion.
Okay let's back up then shall we. You did post this statement "My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys." Did you not? Our contention may be caused by the concept of "support". Support is data that "supports" the conclusion. If you amend your position to be "there is a wide held belief they do, "promoted" by surveys" then our contention will evaporate. As I have posted several times now none of the surveys I've found, including those posted here "support" the "widely held belief"
Had I made the claim that dual monitors did in fact improve productivity, then I would expect that I would be asked to provide data and specifics about how the data was gathered and how it was analyzed, but I did none of that and I made no claims. As always your issue is with the purveyors of the surveys, not me.
I don't think I ever asked you for any kind of data, merely pointed out that the surveys you claimed "supported" the conclusion, in fact did not. And yes my issue has always been the purveyors of the surveys.
Here again, you are changing your statements ... before you had issues with buying 2 monitors and a video card ... then it was shown that a special video splitter cable will allow 2 monitors on the same cable ... fine .. you still have to buy 2 monitors ... ok ... but you have 1 monitor already .. no .. you buy new equipment all at once .. fine, then if that is the case, you have killed several of your own points with regard to the opposition of having 2 monitors,
No change in my statement, merely a change in your assumptions from less informed to more informed about what we do.
a) Manufacturers such as HP and Dell already include dual head video cards as a default on workstations (kills argument for having to buy a video card and have it installed)
We have a corporate supplier that supplies single monitor cards by default
b) You are already buying the hardware (kills argument on having to buy 2 monitors, as 1 will come with the system, unless you buy computers without monitors)
Some we do some we don't. The base machine is the same for all users, monitors change depending on usage.
c) You already have to pay someone to setup and install the hardware (kills the high labor cost associated with installing a new monitor and video card or splitter on an older system and having to make it work)
The corporate base machine comes setup. Setting up additional hardware comes out of our budget.
If you have anything that shows a productivity improvement, even as little as 0.02%, you would be stupid to throw away the opportunity to get it.
First off anyone that does any kind of statistical analysis will tell you a 0.02 percent mark is a statistical anomaly, all surveys will have at best a plus or minus five to at worst plus or minus twenty-five percent accuracy depending on the sample and duration. Had you read my entire post you'd have seen that the anomaly occurred for just two of the surveyed users who produced numbers completely out of line with the other users. Had we thrown out the two high producers and the two low producers, there would have been no increase at all. That's the reason I asked for other surveys, as I stated, ours was inconclusive
-
Somebody posted that there were surveys that proved dual monitors increased productivity
No, see .. you are mistaken once again ...
Somebody posted
According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity
Here (http://According to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity) is the link, just in case you wish to retract the several times you have erroniously made this assertion.
Okay let's back up then shall we. You did post this statement "My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys." Did you not? Our contention may be caused by the concept of "support". Support is data that "supports" the conclusion. If you amend your position to be "there is a wide held belief they do, "promoted" by surveys" then our contention will evaporate. As I have posted several times now none of the surveys I've found, including those posted here "support" the "widely held belief"
Incorrect ... you are still confusing the data of the survey (which we don't know what it is) with the data containing the survey, which we DO know what it is. My data set included 1 survey which you cannot access fully, and references to 2 other surveys. My data set included 3 pieces of data, they ALL supported my comment. I never commented about the data in the individual surveys and they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome.
If I say certain things appear blue, then you may say show me data supporting that. If I show you a box with a blue light in it, you can only accept that they appear blue as I didn't qualify the statement. You can argue that the object would not appear blue outside the box, but that it a different argument altogether.
Had I made the claim that dual monitors did in fact improve productivity, then I would expect that I would be asked to provide data and specifics about how the data was gathered and how it was analyzed, but I did none of that and I made no claims. As always your issue is with the purveyors of the surveys, not me.
I don't think I ever asked you for any kind of data, merely pointed out that the surveys you claimed "supported" the conclusion, in fact did not. And yes my issue has always been the purveyors of the surveys.
No I never said the surveys supported the conclusion, I stated the surveys supported my statement ... 2 completely different animals
Here again, you are changing your statements ... before you had issues with buying 2 monitors and a video card ... then it was shown that a special video splitter cable will allow 2 monitors on the same cable ... fine .. you still have to buy 2 monitors ... ok ... but you have 1 monitor already .. no .. you buy new equipment all at once .. fine, then if that is the case, you have killed several of your own points with regard to the opposition of having 2 monitors,
No change in my statement, merely a change in your assumptions from less informed to more informed about what we do.
a) Manufacturers such as HP and Dell already include dual head video cards as a default on workstations (kills argument for having to buy a video card and have it installed)
We have a corporate supplier that supplies single monitor cards by default
b) You are already buying the hardware (kills argument on having to buy 2 monitors, as 1 will come with the system, unless you buy computers without monitors)
Some we do some we don't. The base machine is the same for all users, monitors change depending on usage.
c) You already have to pay someone to setup and install the hardware (kills the high labor cost associated with installing a new monitor and video card or splitter on an older system and having to make it work)
The corporate base machine comes setup. Setting up additional hardware comes out of our budget.
If you have anything that shows a productivity improvement, even as little as 0.02%, you would be stupid to throw away the opportunity to get it.
First off anyone that does any kind of statistical analysis will tell you a 0.02 percent mark is a statistical anomaly, all surveys will have at best a plus or minus five to at worst plus or minus twenty-five percent accuracy depending on the sample and duration. Had you read my entire post you'd have seen that the anomaly occurred for just two of the surveyed users who produced numbers completely out of line with the other users. Had we thrown out the two high producers and the two low producers, there would have been no increase at all. That's the reason I asked for other surveys, as I stated, ours was inconclusive
It appears to me then that you are being cheated on your hardware since even the cheapest of video cards nowadays have 2 outputs .. some have even more, especially the ones designed for graphic intensive work.
Perhaps you should find another supplier
-
First off anyone that does any kind of statistical analysis will tell you a 0.02 percent mark is a statistical anomaly, all surveys will have at best a plus or minus five to at worst plus or minus twenty-five percent accuracy depending on the sample and duration. Had you read my entire post you'd have seen that the anomaly occurred for just two of the surveyed users who produced numbers completely out of line with the other users. Had we thrown out the two high producers and the two low producers, there would have been no increase at all. That's the reason I asked for other surveys, as I stated, ours was inconclusive
Oohh Oohh Oohh
You getting me all excited over here.
Ahhh Memories.
:lol: :lol: :lol:
-
Incorrect ... you are still confusing the data of the survey (which we don't know what it is) with the data containing the survey, which we DO know what it is. My data set included 1 survey which you cannot access fully, and references to 2 other surveys. My data set included 3 pieces of data, they ALL supported my comment. I never commented about the data in the individual surveys and they have absolutely no bearing on the outcome.
If I say certain things appear blue, then you may say show me data supporting that. If I show you a box with a blue light in it, you can only accept that they appear blue as I didn't qualify the statement. You can argue that the object would not appear blue outside the box, but that it a different argument altogether.
You posted the following: "My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys."
Did you not?
No I never said the surveys supported the conclusion, I stated the surveys supported my statement ... 2 completely different animals
You posted the following: "My point was not that multiple monitors improve productivity (a point you continually fail to see), but rather there is a wide held belief they do, supported by surveys."
Did you not?
So far the posted surveys do NOT "support" the widely held belief, they merely make statements promoting that belief.
It appears to me then that you are being cheated on your hardware since even the cheapest of video cards nowadays have 2 outputs .. some have even more, especially the ones designed for graphic intensive work.
Distinctly possible, our corporate bean-counters got in-bed with a particular manufacturer several years ago to supply all our hardware. Most of the guys that then have to manage that hardware are now stuck with that decision. To get anything EXCEPT the agreed upon hardware requires sufficient support to convince the bean-counters, which is the foundation for my initial question.
Perhaps you should find another supplier
MORE distinctly possible, but that’s not my call.
-
Randy, insofar as I am concerned (and likely a vast number of others). If somebody promotes something it is generally held that they support it, thus any thinking person would conclude that promoting and supporting are co-dependent and as such they are not distinctly different.
I could just as easily decide I didn't like the definition of any word you used and choose another definition that changes the context of your comments, but then I think I am smart enough to understand the context in which it was meant, and it serves no useful purpose to convolute the discussion with extraneous precepts about what the meaning of "is" is.
-
Randy, insofar as I am concerned (and likely a vast number of others). If somebody promotes something it is generally held that they support it, thus any thinking person would conclude that promoting and supporting are co-dependent and as such they are not distinctly different.
Oh c'mon, Keith, you're better than that. You know full well there is a major difference in between support and promote. You have to get down to the sixth or seventh definition in even cheap dictionaries to find an inkling of commonality in the definitions.
I could just as easily decide I didn't like the definition of any word you used and choose another definition that changes the context of your comments,
If you would wade back through every post I've made in this thread you'll see the same defintion for support used every time. I've asked for the data "supporting" the assertions since the very second post.
it serves no useful purpose to convolute the discussion with extraneous precepts about what the meaning of "is" is.
Exactly, we know what "is" means, just as we know what "support" means. Attempting to covor by making it mean something else is weasling.
-
Randy, insofar as I am concerned (and likely a vast number of others). If somebody promotes something it is generally held that they support it, thus any thinking person would conclude that promoting and supporting are co-dependent and as such they are not distinctly different.
Oh c'mon, Keith, you're better than that. You know full well there is a major difference in between support and promote. You have to get down to the sixth or seventh definition in even cheap dictionaries to find an inkling of commonality in the definitions.
I could just as easily decide I didn't like the definition of any word you used and choose another definition that changes the context of your comments,
If you would wade back through every post I've made in this thread you'll see the same defintion for support used every time. I've asked for the data "supporting" the assertions since the very second post.
it serves no useful purpose to convolute the discussion with extraneous precepts about what the meaning of "is" is.
Exactly, we know what "is" means, just as we know what "support" means. Attempting to covor by making it mean something else is weasling.
Then by all means stop weasling
Roget theosaurus states that "support" is a synonym for "promote" thus since it is considered a synonym, I can use it as a direct replacement. If you choose not to accept that then your problem is with the command of the English language, not my comments.
-
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
:-D
-
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
Randy: "Did not"
Keith: "Did too"
:-D
where's
"I'm telling mom!"
-
where's
"I'm telling mom!"
She died in 2001 ... I can't very well go tell her now can I
-
She died in 2001 ... I can't very well go tell her now can I
*crickets.wav*
-
Roget theosaurus states that "support" is a synonym for "promote" thus since it is considered a synonym, I can use it as a direct replacement. If you choose not to accept that then your problem is with the command of the English language, not my comments.
Oh c'mon Keith that's beneath you. Not sure what a theosaurus is (religious lizard??), But this (http://www.synonym.com/synonym/support)thesaurus does get close to "promote" until item six with the first five upholding the meaning to which I have subscribed. This dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/support) did't get to your usage until Item seven A, with the first six upholding my usage of the word. Do you really want to go this way Keith? After reading the bulk of my last four thousand posts, you want to claim you didn't know what I meant by "support"?
-
Roget theosaurus states that "support" is a synonym for "promote" thus since it is considered a synonym, I can use it as a direct replacement. If you choose not to accept that then your problem is with the command of the English language, not my comments.
Oh c'mon Keith that's beneath you. Not sure what a theosaurus is (religious lizard??), But this (http://www.synonym.com/synonym/support)thesaurus does get close to "promote" until item six with the first five upholding the meaning to which I have subscribed. This dictionary (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/support) did't get to your usage until Item seven A, with the first six upholding my usage of the word. Do you really want to go this way Keith? After reading the bulk of my last four thousand posts, you want to claim you didn't know what I meant by "support"?
[whistle wav from the Good Bad & Ugly movie] :-)
-
Ok .. so my spelling is atrocious .. what do you want to make of it.
No, I merely checked the thesaurus for promote, and there it was ... support. Thus one could conclude they may be interchangable.
You continue to lead on this holy crusade of being 100% right 100% of the time and in this case you are absolutely wrong and you are the only one who fails to understand that.
The surveys supported my statement, they did not promote my statement, but had they promoted my statement, I could have stated they supported it. Unless their statements were a lie, and since I have no way to disprove it, the primafacia evidence is in my favor, you lose again.
This has become a discussion of semantics over what this particular word means, who said what who meant what and what you choose to believe. I personally don't care, you have changed your argument from one thing to the other .. when you can't get very far on one item you change top another, all the while claiming you never changed .. that everyone else must be wrong. You have IMHO, put the likes of some of the best politicians to shame with your incessant maneuvering around the issue.
I will cease to become a part of this discussion as it has absolutely no bearing on the original discussion of this thread.
-
Ok .. so my spelling is atrocious .. what do you want to make of it.
Just poking fun, I thought religious lizard was funny, but then I have a low sense of humor.
No, I merely checked the thesaurus for promote, and there it was ... support.
That's cause when you checked "support" it no longer supported your position, so you had to run it backwards?
You continue to lead on this holy crusade of being 100% right 100% of the time
Takes two tango my friend
and in this case you are absolutely wrong and you are the only one who fails to understand that.
Sorry, you lost it when you started weasling over words. However much you want, you can NOT claim to have been confused over my use of the word "support" and have been around these boards for as long as you have.
This has become a discussion of semantics over what this particular word means
Exactly, words mean things, and you quite well understood my use of the word "support" from the get-out, as you have several hundred times in past threads.
you have changed your argument from one thing to the other .. w
Not once.
when you can't get very far on one item you change top another, all the while claiming you never changed ..
Never once changed anything Merely clarified your misunderstanding
I will cease to become a part of this discussion as it has absolutely no bearing on the original discussion of this thread.
bail
-
No, I merely checked the thesaurus for promote, and there it was ... support.
Did you use an online thesaurus?
-
No, I merely checked the thesaurus for promote, and there it was ... support.
Did you use an online thesaurus?
Roget .. do they have an online version?
anyway, according to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity.
-
I'll bet this one (http://www.cheesesurvey.com/) doesn't.
-
Probably not Mav ... probably not .. but then it doesn't address dual monitors ... FYI I took that survey
-
anyway, according to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity.
Oh? Could you post one?
-
anyway, according to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity.
Oh? Could you post one?
i just conducted one...
yes : 100% (1 surveyed)
no : 0% (0)
-
anyway, according to most surveys, dual monitors improve productivity.
Oh? Could you post one?
I posted references to at least 3 .. you didn't like them ..
-
Not sure if it's proper to post a ? here or start a new topic, but:
Today was my first day at the new firm and my first with 2 monitors. The problem is its one view stretched over 2 screens. Currently I have ACAD stretched to fill one screen, but I don't think that's the way it is suppose to be. Twice I fell for the same blunder, turn a toolbar and its no where to be seen, will duh it was over on the other screen. :oops:
What setting do I need to have 2 programs, full screen on each monitor?
Thanks All, hope I'm making sense!
Ain't life beautiful :-)
-
Unfortunately, many programmers don't test their software with dual monitors, or keep in mind that the user may have dual monitors. Therefore, they don't always choose the appropriate default location for things like dialogue boxes. They tend to default them to the center of the primary monitor, which may not be the same as the monitor displaying the main window. This is something they don't notice with only one monitor, but annoys people with two monitors.
Some windows "remember" where you move them to, so that they open in the same spot every time. With these, you can move them to where you want them, and they'll appear there every time. Others "remember" where you move them to until you shut down the program, so you have to move them every time you restart the program. And still others don't "remember" anything, and always open in their pre-programmed place. This is one of the rarely-advertised joys of dual-monitors... :wink:
There's another problem, this time with the ones that "remember" where you put them. You can drag a dialog box to Monitor 2, and it will always open up where you put it. But that creates a problem if you change the relative location of your monitors, so that the one that used to be on the left is now on the right, or if you lose one monitor and are forced to go back to single-monitor again. Windows cheerfully allows your program to attempt to display the dialog box in the location you desired, even though there is no longer a monitor there. So you get this nifty "missing dialog" problem, where the program pops open the dialog box and waits for you to do something, but you can't do anything because you can't see the dialog box. Lots of fun.
-
I find it best with AutoCAD to have the drawing editor in a window that fills one screen but not maximized and place everything else on the second monitor. For some reason this works best with the editor on the secondary monitor on my system as any toolbar or application that doesn't understand the concept of being less important remembers its location on the primary monitor and rarely gets lost. I don't know if Microstation will work the same way, but I would try that formula first.
It looks like sinc may have a similar answer for you . . . sorry if mine turns out to be redundant.
-
You can drag a dialog box to Monitor 2, and it will always open up where you put it.
Agreed its seems that ACAD dialog boxes would stay, then I would close Excel, or Email and the Save Changes would be split don the middle of 2 screens.
I think there is a way, the Boss' system did not behave this way, but he couldn't remember the setting. His seems to have 2 monitors working independently, (but mabe they are "stretched"), like one could have separate wall papers on each screen. Mmmmmmmm.
Anyway I'm not complaining, its great to get back to the "Civil" world. :-D
Thanks for the response's
-
Man! I just read the majority of this thread and now my brain hurts. Time to look something else up. I'll be back on the dual monitor thing soon though... sounds like we're going to be getting duallies in the next few weeks. :)
-
After nearly eight months with dual monitors on over a hundred stations, the numbers we have indicate zero production improvement. The troops "feel" more productive, but that hasn't translated into actual production yet, I see no indications it ever will.
-
After nearly eight months with dual monitors on over a hundred stations, the numbers we have indicate zero production improvement. The troops "feel" more productive, but that hasn't translated into actual production yet, I see no indications it ever will.
Do you think their morale improvement is worth the cost?
-
After nearly eight months with dual monitors on over a hundred stations, the numbers we have indicate zero production improvement. The troops "feel" more productive, but that hasn't translated into actual production yet, I see no indications it ever will.
Do you think their morale improvement is worth the cost?
they found other stuff to whine about, morale improvement was very short lived.
-
After nearly eight months with dual monitors on over a hundred stations, the numbers we have indicate zero production improvement. The troops "feel" more productive, but that hasn't translated into actual production yet, I see no indications it ever will.
Do you think their morale improvement is worth the cost?
they found other stuff to whine about, morale improvement was very short lived.
haha
Guess that was to be expected. I honestly can't find a single thing wrong with my setup. I have a 24" widescreen which is awesome... it helps with my eye strain... I'm young, so it's not a problem, but I do notice a difference if I work on the screen at home, and it's the same brand, but a 20" widescreen... I have to sit closer though at the same resolution. Taking the resolution down makes the workspace cumbersome compared to my habits. With the 24" widescreen, I am able to push the flat screen to the back of my desk, sit back in my chair, and draft. If my eyes are feeling a bit strained, I can sit up in my chair, leaned forward a bit, and my face is still a quite good distance away from the monitor.
That's the important factor to me.
I have 2g RAM... quite fine.
P4 3ghz... could be better, but it's not a hindrance, so why care?
Video card leaves... a little to be desired.. at times. Autocad doesn't like it so much, but it doesn't hurt, because it doesn't control the final output. We don't use any screenshots heh.
I uh... well I guess there's not much else that matters. Hard drive is obviously more than I need... that's cheap.
-
I have a 24" widescreen which is awesome...
That's what I have at home, and the direction I wanted to go corporately, but I was out-voted by the Microstation crowd in one of our other offices.
-
I have a 24" widescreen which is awesome...
That's what I have at home, and the direction I wanted to go corporately, but I was out-voted by the Microstation crowd in one of our other offices.
I think MicroStation and its overabundance of pop-up menus necessitates two screens. You really didn't see any improvements, dead guy?
-
I was helping a person at work today trying to use Microstation on one monitor... my oh my it was painful. Moving things out of the way, closing dialog boxes, only tho have to open them up again a minute later.... nah, I'll stick to my dual monitors thanks. My AutoCAD is set pretty much the same layout so its fairly easy to switch between the two programs.
-
We had dual monitors when I first started. One was a 17" NEC and the other was our choice of either Green or Amber monochrome 13". (I'm guessing on the size of the mono... it was small, anyway)
Regardless of its size, dual monitors is GREAT with Microstation.
-
We had dual monitors when I first started. One was a 17" NEC and the other was our choice of either Green or Amber monochrome 13". (I'm guessing on the size of the mono... it was small, anyway)
Regardless of its size, dual monitors is GREAT with Microstation.
There is joke in there somewhere.
Oh well Mav or Greg will find it and make use of it.
-
I have a 24" widescreen which is awesome...
That's what I have at home, and the direction I wanted to go corporately, but I was out-voted by the Microstation crowd in one of our other offices.
I think MicroStation and its overabundance of pop-up menus necessitates two screens. You really didn't see any improvements, dead guy?
if you choose to live with Msta out of the box, yes it can be an extreme screen hog. However a little thoughtful planning and custom pull downs can reduce the screen clutter tremendously and really improve productivity. That said Msta and PDS are the primary reason for the wide format monitor, the extra room for screen hogging crud.