A Dream Of A Dual Monitor Display, Lend Me Your Brain?

Background:
So last year I spent a large sum of money on what i thought would be my gaming computer. Shortly after purchasing the computer I starting doing less gaming and more graphic designing. I am trying to expand my knowledge of graphic design, as my fondness of it has become somewhat great in the past two or three years. It started with making avatars and such, etc... but I now find myself wanting to make decals and t-shirts designs. So the computer I once used for gaming I believe I will be using mainly for graphic design and occasional gaming.

SO

On that note, I'd like to get a dual monitor display for my desktop that would be good for both games and graphic design, mainly graphic design. I've looked around quite a bit but I've heard different opinions and seen completely different things in graphic design magazines.

I wanted to put my question to the Windows 7 community, I've always been pointed in the right direction here and would like to continue that trend.

SIDE NOTE:

Newer Technology:
I know there will always be something bigger, better, and faster coming out on the market but when I originally built my desktop I chose a Mid-tower because I didn't want a High-tower due to the size etc... I recently got back from school so I have yet to set-up my desktop so I can't look at the specs but I know off the top of my head it has a EVGA Nvidia 9800 GX2 graphics card, 8G of DDR2 Corsair Dominator ram, two Western Digital Velociraptor Hardrives, and a Intel quad Core processor. Some of the hardware I forgot over time but if anyone knows...

Would there be any significant improvement if i were to upgrade my desktop? It's only been one year and i know DDR3 is becoming the new thing but what do you guys think? The graphics card hardly fits and blocks a decent amount of airflow since it is in a mid-tower but I have two Thermaltake LED smart fans that intake and exhaust the air that run from 1300 rpm to 2300. Its suppose to change if the temperature rises but i dono if I have it setup properly for it to do so, has to do with complication with a display I have.

Price range, then we can start from there.

Sanvean said:

Price range, then we can start from there.

Click to expand...

I've put some thought into it, not a lot.

I don't need like some crazy 3D LED display even though I would thoroughly enjoy that. I'm honestly willing to go up to a grand but it seems like something like that might be a bit over kill for my current capabilities.

If that helps?

Anyone?

1) Your computer is fine for all your graphic needs. Corel, CS5, most softwares I know will run perfectly with your setup. I don't think turning it into a money sink will do any good.
2) On the note of dual monitors: if what you design is decals and t-shirts, your gaming monitor will do great for design, too. If you plan to do print or web design, things change a bit, because these subjects require greater color accuracy of your monitor, and, you guessed, this comes at the price of speed and gaming performance. What I advise is if you plan to go into professional design for print and web, get a design LCD (LED-lit, IPS or whatever the technology of the hour is for this field) and a fast LCD for gaming (TN). If you don't look that far, just go with your gaming LCD and when you get your eye trained to the point that you can spot color defficiency, go for the second one.

On the Mac vs PC issue, I think it's just a trend, like Adobe is more popular than Corel: if there are enough designers to use Mac, then their 'apprentices' will be also accustomed to it, and so the trend builds. Technically I see no gain on either one, it's just a matter of personal preference and industry compliance. It's like "Why do we drive right?" Well, because right looked good to the first drunk drivers and there was no debate. But you are always free to move to England and drive left

Lollies, if you work with graphics - a dual monitor setup will HELP A LOT. I use 3 Monitors setup (2x 24" and 1x 15"). I can't help but to feel cramped when I'm forced to use single monitor systems. Let's say you use Photoshop a lot, adding the second monitor will help in how many "active" windows you can have at the same time. What I mean by "active" windows is : those Windows that you need to access at any given time, it must not be overshadowed by another window, like pallets in Photoshop, and your assets explorer Window. Here's what I mean (I use GIMP for this example):
The left hand monitor is for "monitors/controllers", like iTunes mini window, sound card dashboard app, clock, bandwidth monitor, etc, the middle monitor is the main workplace, the right hand monitor is for asset management, pallets, etc... This way you can work MUCH easier, and more efficient too IMHO.

As for Mac/PC debate for graphic designer, I have to say that I like Apple Mac OS X's "Document focused" window system instead of "Application focused" window system used by Microsoft. In MacOS, you are focused to the task at hand, Photoshop isn't constrained by it's "window", because when Photoshop is active, your "main menu bar" is filled with Photoshop's menu items. If Finder (Explorer's equivalent in Mac" is active, the "main menu bar" is filled with Finder's menu items, Photoshop's menu item is replaced. On the desktop OTOH, you can still see Photoshop's documents open, yet the pallets is hidden so that it doesn't get in the way. MacOS's window management approach is by far more effective for document focused workflow.

zzz2496

Right you are. I only saw the "need for a good design display" part of the problem. Still, just for dabbling in design, it's hardly necessary.

dynu said:

Right you are. I only saw the "need for a good design display" part of the problem. Still, just for dabbling in design, it's hardly necessary.

Click to expand...

Pardon me...?
Once you have a multi monitor setup, "it's hardly necessary" will become "absolutely necessary"

zzz2496

Dual monitors will help a lot with graphic design. I use dual monitors at the moment, and I'd never go back to single. It makes programming/coding about a million times easier and better to do.

I have been using duals in graphics for about ten years and the thought of using a single monitor doesn't even enter the picture.

As Dynu stated, TN panels are the widely common type (cheap) and IPS which gives a wide viewing angle and accurate color reproduction (higher cost). The reason I asked about a budget initially, is due to the IPS option. Take a look over at Dell/Newegg and see what they have to offer in IPS panels.

If you are to do color critical work = IPS
General usage = TN (you can get very good results if calibrated)

My thoughts summed up:
Dual high grade TN panels (widescreen) to start. If your graphics take off, then reinvest in yourself and upgrade to dual (or more) IPS. You can even write them off as a business expense on your taxes... lol.

This is somewhat of s silly question but how to you go about telling the difference between a ISP and TN? I'm looking at newegg.com now (LCD monitors) but not sure how you know which is which?

IPS panel equipped LCD Monitor will always cost around 2-3x more than the same diagonal sized TN panel equipped. Dell U2410 is IPS Panel equipped, Apple Cinema Display 24" is IPS too. There's another panel tech that's a little bit cheaper, faster response and very small difference in color performance than IPS, that's S-PVA, Dell 2408WFP is one of them, cheap and GOOD, quite fast for gaming - the middle compromize
S-PVAs are mostly 1.5 - 2x the price of similar priced TN. Say a 24" TN costs 300, a S-PVA will cost 450-600, IPS will cost 600-900, sometimes more when we're talking about the professional grade (up to 1500 IIRC).

zzz2496

Look at what I found:
Newegg.com - ViewSonic VP2365wb Black 23"IPS LCD Monitor w/4-port USB hub,height&pivot adjustment 300 cd/m2 1000:1


At the Egg for $299.99 and it's IPS! Get 2 and it's still way under your budget!

Model
Brand View Sonic
Model VP2365wb
Series Pro Series
Cabinet Color Black
Display Screen Size 23"
Widescreen Yes
Maximum Resolution 1920 x 1080
Recommended Resolution 1920 x 1080
Viewing Angle 178°(H) / 178°(V)
Brightness 300 cd/m2
Contrast Ratio1000:1
Response Time14ms
Horizontal Refresh Rate22 ~ 82kHzVertical Refresh Rate50 ~ 75Hz
Pane lIPS Panel
Connectivity
Input Video Compatibility Analog RGB, Digital
Connectors D-Sub, DVI-D
D-Sub 1
DVI 1
HDMI No
USB 2.0 4

It's a H-IPS, the "cheaper" IPS panel, performs closer to a TN than an IPS... For "good" IPS, you'd need the S-IPS panel...

zzz2496

Just trying to give him another option

Yeah, I know... just wanted to tell the OP the "right" IPS to buy...

zzz2496

Edit: unless he's on the "whatever as long it's IPS" mode...

This Dell runs about $600
Dell UltraSharp? U2410 Monitor with PremierColor technology

Hmmm maybe tax time next year for me.

I got Dell 2407WFP as my main monitor (the center one), and it works GREAT, and it's cheap now (well, there's no more 2407, 2408 is the replacement).

zzz2496

So it will not just tell you in the specs? You would just have to assume that with a higher price tag that it would be an ISP? I've been lookin around newegg.com and it seems like there are some at the $600-$1000 range but then it takes a drastic drop into $200-$300 range.

What would you say about?

Sanvean said:

This Dell runs about $600
Dell UltraSharp? U2410 Monitor with PremierColor technology

Hmmm maybe tax time next year for me.

Click to expand...

Manufacturers rarely blabber about panel technology, most of the time they will blabber about response time (which IMHO is irrelevant compared to color reproduction), not so much about panel. The rule of thumb is the better panel technology = much higher price... MUCH HIGHER. Dell 24" that's priced above $500 will either have S-IPS or S-PVA panel, both are VERY GOOD.

zzz2496