Two heads are better than one
Not too long ago my friend Tom complained: Why, he mused, would someone as keen on gadgetry as I am not have two monitors? Of course, I made it clear that I was not interested in simple indulgence. Each and every one of my "investments" in technology had to be justified by the gains in productivity that they created. Tom was clear, however, that a second monitor was not merely showing off but extremely practical. It allowed you to place two pieces of information side by side at resolutions sufficient to allow them both to be read.
So I bought one - or rather a second one. Now I have two monitors side by side and it is fantastic. The two monitors can function both individually and as one larger screen. So if I drag a program off the left hand monitor's right hand side it appears on the right hand monitor. Unfortunately my two monitors are both different dimensions and different resolutions - so the full functionality of dual-screens is not yet mine. With identical screens you can stretch the windows of applications over the two monitors without seeing any distortion.
Even so, no longer when I am copy typing do I need to keep switching between the documents. I can simply put one on the left screen and the other on the right. When I want to check my diary whilst still making notes I can pull up my diary from Outlook, then open it as a separate screen and move it across to the other monitor. Its good for the environment too, (I speculate), because it means I don’t need to print out papers in order to have easy reference to them at the same time as drafting a document on screen. (Of course you have to ignore the energy and other costs of having a second monitor running.) If you want to have reference to a diagram at the same time as looking at a description of the diagram - like with a patent specification - open the same document on two screens. No wonder that the boffins at Microsoft have discovered that adding a second screen can raise your productivity between 9 and 50 percent!
It was easy to do too. Windows XP is set up to handle dual monitors and my computer already came with twin video sockets - one digital and one analogue. I just plugged the second monitor in and fiddled around briefly in CONTROL PANEL> DISPLAY> SETTINGS.
The only thing I didn't like was that the task bar at the bottom of the primary screen was not replicated on the second screen. That meant that I couldn't easily switch between applications with the mouse on that screen. I also wanted to have an easy way of moving programs between screens other than just dragging them between the monitors. I found all this in ULTRAMON. It was annoyingly expensive at $39.95 for a single-license given that I really only wanted it for its most basic functionality - functionality that I felt Microsoft should have included in XP anyway. But it was necessary. There is a free download so if you go down the dual monitor route - and really I can't recommend it enough - you can try before you buy.
Can't afford a second monitor? - try this piece of software that lets you divide up your current monitor.
Tom, by the way, has three monitors. And a laptop.
So I bought one - or rather a second one. Now I have two monitors side by side and it is fantastic. The two monitors can function both individually and as one larger screen. So if I drag a program off the left hand monitor's right hand side it appears on the right hand monitor. Unfortunately my two monitors are both different dimensions and different resolutions - so the full functionality of dual-screens is not yet mine. With identical screens you can stretch the windows of applications over the two monitors without seeing any distortion.
Even so, no longer when I am copy typing do I need to keep switching between the documents. I can simply put one on the left screen and the other on the right. When I want to check my diary whilst still making notes I can pull up my diary from Outlook, then open it as a separate screen and move it across to the other monitor. Its good for the environment too, (I speculate), because it means I don’t need to print out papers in order to have easy reference to them at the same time as drafting a document on screen. (Of course you have to ignore the energy and other costs of having a second monitor running.) If you want to have reference to a diagram at the same time as looking at a description of the diagram - like with a patent specification - open the same document on two screens. No wonder that the boffins at Microsoft have discovered that adding a second screen can raise your productivity between 9 and 50 percent!
It was easy to do too. Windows XP is set up to handle dual monitors and my computer already came with twin video sockets - one digital and one analogue. I just plugged the second monitor in and fiddled around briefly in CONTROL PANEL> DISPLAY> SETTINGS.
The only thing I didn't like was that the task bar at the bottom of the primary screen was not replicated on the second screen. That meant that I couldn't easily switch between applications with the mouse on that screen. I also wanted to have an easy way of moving programs between screens other than just dragging them between the monitors. I found all this in ULTRAMON. It was annoyingly expensive at $39.95 for a single-license given that I really only wanted it for its most basic functionality - functionality that I felt Microsoft should have included in XP anyway. But it was necessary. There is a free download so if you go down the dual monitor route - and really I can't recommend it enough - you can try before you buy.
Can't afford a second monitor? - try this piece of software that lets you divide up your current monitor.
Tom, by the way, has three monitors. And a laptop.

