Accell introduces their USB 2.0 to VGA Adapter at CES

If you spend any amount of time in front of a computer, you're already sold on the idea of a second monitor -- luckily, there are an ever-increasing number of options out there for you. Looking to give DisplayLink a run for its money, Accell Cables is throwin' down with their UltraVideo USB 2.0 to VGA Adapter. This guy is bus powered, rocks up to UXGA (1600 x 1200) resolution, and the display drivers (available for PC and Mac) support up to four adapters. Listed for $89.99, it will be making the rounds at CES this week.

[Via About Projectors]

[Johannes @ Jan 7th 2009 8:47AM]

Just like this one: http://www.dealextreme.com/details.dx/sku.19392

That's been around for a while, but maybe the support will be better now that more products are coming around.

[LordOfWar @ Jan 7th 2009 8:52AM]

Sweet, but I wonder if they will come out with a usb 3.0 one :P

[Killakai @ Jan 7th 2009 9:12AM]

I spend a ridiculous amount of time in front of my computer, but I still cant see the utility in having a second monitor. Maybe because I use a 32" hdtv as a monitor or I am missing something. Someone tell me if I'm crazy or if endgadet is crazy.

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Jan 7th 2009 9:16AM]

It depends on what you're doing with your computer, Killakai. If you're just playing Commander Keen or doing word processing, yeah, there's no need for multiple monitors. If you're using some applications (Maya, 3DS Max, After Effects, Avid, etc.) that have a lot of tools & multi-windows, you can get a lot more organized and have a more productive workflow with multiple monitors.

[timbemo @ Jan 7th 2009 9:19AM]

After using two monitors at work for sometime (doing web development) I decided to spring for a USB-video adapter from EVGA. Now I can't imagine working with less than 3 monitors. Trying to do web development at home on my 1440x900 laptop now just is a pain.

That said, I really wish someone would whip one of these up that supports 1920x1200 so I can go to 3 24" monitors instead of two 24" and one 22" :(

[eric @ Jan 7th 2009 9:23AM]

If you're truly multi tasking, you probably spend a lot of time resizing windows in a 32" screen.
Having two screens makes multi tasking a lot easier. That said, if I was working, I'd rather have two 21" screens (or even 19") than one 32" screen.

Of course window resizing becomes a lot more easier if you've got some kind of software to help you with this like Gridmove.

but for OSX, i'm not sure if there's a software solution.

[Boards of Canada @ Jan 7th 2009 9:33AM]

My 2 screens era is gone now that I have a dell 30inch monitor. Still those usb keys are really great!

[AMiSH PiRATE @ Jan 7th 2009 11:10AM]

@ Eric

"...but for OSX, i'm not sure if there's a software solution."

Spaces comes with Leopard. It's not too bad when I remember to use it.

[Wwhat @ Jan 7th 2009 12:52PM]

The multi-monitor thing is still in its infancy I'd say, so many unresolved side-issues..

[huh @ Jan 7th 2009 9:38AM]

Just thought I'd mention Synergy, which lets you use the displays, keyboards and mice from multiple computers across a seamless desktop. It's open source and an interesting alternative to multiple monitors if you already have multiple computers.

[Chad @ Jan 7th 2009 10:09AM]

Yeah, Synergy is great but it is more like a KVM switch over Ethernet minus the -M. It's great for people who have two machines (usually one is for heavy lifting like compiling large bits of code etc.) and don't want to be switching between them. It's also multi-platform so you can seamlessly go from your Windows box to your Mac and then to your Linux box. It doesn't look like it's been actively worked on since 2006 though so who knows if it works with Vista or any flavor of 64 bit WinOS. Anyone interested can find it here
http://freshmeat.net/projects/synergy2/

[spam_from_engadget @ Jan 7th 2009 10:33AM]

I think these people might have some trouble competing with DisplayLink, unless they have some unique selling point to differentiate themselves. Is there one?

My only complaint about DisplayLink is that they have no Linux support and that the protocol is secret. It looks like this company have the same problem. The only device that works with Linux is an older one that's basically a USB-to-PCI chip and a PCI VGA chip bodged together; it works but has much worse performance than the DisplayLink solution.

[Dave @ Jan 7th 2009 11:24AM]

If the max. resolution it supports is 1600x1200, will 1680x1050 also work? I'm not sure how the calculations work. I've been looking at these things for a while now, as I'm working with a Macbook Pro and only one external screen is supported. I'd love to be able to use 2 22" screens as my main displays.

[Wwhat @ Jan 7th 2009 12:54PM]

You can always run the monitor at a lower-than-native res is need be.

[m @ Jan 7th 2009 2:15PM]

all new macs have built-in drm on displayport that restricts output, to fight "piracy" (but in my opinion, really just to irritate their loyal customers, sony style). i wonder if this thing would get around it... i think they'd sell more than a few, if it does. people are pissed. of course $90 is steep, even compared to apple's overpriced dongles.