I definitely agree with that part. But what I do is run full screen stacked (because that's what I've been told) at 1920x1200 and then added another monitor on which to run the videoFX slave screens.

I'm curious about which one puts a heavier load on your graphics system -- one monitor running 2560x1600 with 1920x1200 char windows stacked and videoFX windows around the edges, or having two monitors running at 1920x1200 with the main monitor running full screen stacked and the videoFX windows on the other monitor. I suspect that the two monitor scheme would look like a 3840x1200 display (total of 4.608M pixels) as opposed to the 2560x1600 display (4.096M pixels). I don't know if that's the only consideration, though. For instance, on the second monitor I only used a 600x1200 videoFX window. Does that matter, or is it the total available image size that matters?