Re: Dual head question

[Robert J. Slover]

Actually, I never heard a PC user talk about it at all until a few years
ago when they could finally do it (actually, you could do it on a PC too,
but for the longest time one of the cards had to be hercules (different
base IO address) or something special and configurable like a Viking
card that had special driver support in GEM or AutoCad).

I always have heard the reference to the display as 'head' when talking
about servers or development machines.  For instance, my 13 Vaxen at my
last job were all running 'headless' as were most of the Sun boxes.  At
the job before that, we had some multi-headed AIX and Ultrix boxes in 
the lab.  My personal theory is that the usage stems from when and with
whom the usage of multiple displays became common.  With a Mac, an end
user has been able to do this since the Mac II...nothing special about
it, it just works.  For PCs, you needed (and to some extent still do) to
know what you were doing and were much more likely to be the type of user
who had some experience behind the glass wall.  These kinds of folks will
still call the Mac configuration multi-headed, and many will have no idea
that this is nothing at all special on a Mac.

--Robert

On Tue, 24 Apr 2001, strobe anarkhos wrote:

> Could somebody explain to me why PC users are always talking about "dual 
> head"? I've been using multiple monitors since 1986 and never heard it called 
> "dual head" especially since many setups had three or more monitors with 
> different resolutions and video cards for each. How silly would "triple head" 
> or "quadruple head" or "multi-headed" sound to you?
> 
> Doesn't make any sense to me.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Discuss-gnustep mailing list
> Discuss-gnustep@gnu.org
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss-gnustep
>