tonykapolka

Mea culpa - I didn't mean it that way but I did come across like that. You are right - it does seem that people complain more when you give them something for free. My thinking was that I wanted to leverage the 16:9 work into HP - before I looked into it. After looking, I see more problems. I'm putting together 2 cabinets: one has only one monitor (it's in a cocktail cabinet...) and the other is using a computer with a nvidia card with DVI & HDMI outputs - which can't manage spanning. I could replace the video card but then I'd lose resolution (I have a big 1080p LCD screen). So, in the best-available configuration neither of these setups will run the 16:9 stuff properly. However it sounds like HP will run on both systems and launch whatever I get working - and it's a gorgeous front end - so ultimately I'd say BBB (and anyone else involved) made the right choices.

Dude, read the thread all the way through. BBB made this point in a much kinder way and I agreed with him. You shouldn't make ad hominem attacks. It wasn't a question of my complaining or being ungrateful; it was a comment getting at whether there was thought at the integration of two separate projects (the 16:9 tables and HP). Perhaps I could have worded it better, but I asked the question out of ignorance - and it was answered - that's how people gain knowledge.

You make a really good point!

if that's the case, then the many existing 16:9 tables won't run as is - that makes hp a lot less appealing if I have to go resize everything. I'll need to move all the DMDs also? Although, the decision to use spanning probably won't stand - with Vista, etc not working the same way. (I guess they were following the ultra-pin model.)