[Pilotkev]

Since most of the new video cards support dual monitors has anyone considered the plusses/minuses of using two 15" LCD's in lieu of a single 19". I generally run out of screen space because I am working on two different things at once, rather than working on one giant document; so having both open and in full view seems ideal. I also would like two 15's for the following reasons:

1. More pixels - 1024x768x2 vs 1280x1024. That's a 20% advantage for the 15s.

2. More square inches of screen. Running the numbers equals 216 square inches for 2x15's and 176 for the 19 - a 22% advantage.

3. Price - 15's have gotten much cheaper recently, and I think I can get two average 15's for less than 1 average 19"

So, what am I missing?

Kevin

[m2bored]

Just a note...

I recently bought a 15" and I wish I had sprung for a 17"...

1024X768 just doesn't look good to me anymore.

So I would say go for the 19"

[CheesePuff]

I'd say save $100 and get an 18" LCD - it's the same resolution and screen space as a 19" but a little less. Things wont look so big and out of place. Either go for a 15", 17", 18", or 20".

[Cadaver]

I'd personally go for one 19" (or, as suggested above, save $$ and get a 17" or 18", which will have the same 1280x1024 resolution). I'd run out of vertical space way too rapidly with only 768 vertical pixels.

Either go for a 15", 17", 18", or 20"

That's funny. What else is there (besides the 23 incher)?

[sworthy]

I'm running a 12" powerbook and a 15 apple studio lcd - both at 1024 x 768. I find the space to be rather limited, and like the poster above, wish I sprung for something higher. Even though you'll have more pixels you won't want something spliced between the two monitors very often.

If you are used to anything right now that is greater than 1024 x 768, then don't get the 15's.

[neilw]

To echo what Cadaver said, I find that 768 vertical pixels is a frustrating limitation on my 15" PowerBook. It makes it uncomfortable (unless you like to squint) to view a full document page on the screen. Jumping to at least 1024 vertical would make a world of difference.

While I can understand the appeal of a wide expanse of space with two monitors, my first priority would have to be to get at least 1024 pixels vertical. How about a couple of 17's?

[fulmer]

I'm using monitor spanning with a 12"pb and a 14" LCD, both with 1024x768. I'm seriously considering getting at least a 17" LCD simply for the higher res. It'd give a serious increase in usable size--not just from the addtl 2" but also from the higher res.

hmmm. something for the Christmas wish-list. Maybe Santa will see that one.

[nerd]

Originally posted by neilw:
While I can understand the appeal of a wide expanse of space with two monitors, my first priority would have to be to get at least 1024 pixels vertical. How about a couple of 17's?

I'd have to agree with this also. I've been using 1280x1024 for a long time now. I just gave up my second 15" LCD with the old G4 to the girlfriend (got a dual G5). I still have the 19" monitor on the G5 and the space is good. All I used the other monitor for was iChat, iTunes and the like. Go bigger and single if you have to. You can always add a second monitor when the budget allows it.

Brad

[Pilotkev]

Originally posted by nerd:
Go bigger and single if you have to. You can always add a second monitor when the budget allows it.

Sounds like that's the concensus. Thanks for all the input. I'll seriously look for something between 17-19"
Kevin

[MichiganRich]

Just my two cents, I like the 1280x1024 on a 19" panel, rather than a 17 or 18. You can move the monitor a touch farther away from your eyes, and reduce eyestrain. I work in photo scanning and retouching and could never understand the kids who ran their monitors at max resolution all the time, whether on a 15 inch or 21 inch monitor. Doing that makes the GUI elements smaller than they were designed to be and makes thing harder to read. Ahh, damn spec-chasers anyways (feeling like Abe Simpson)