got it-thanks On Monday 30 August 2004 12:33, you wrote:
On Monday 30 August 2004 12:11 pm, John Sowden wrote:
Thanks, Ill give it a try. mine is an LM-700, I think it maxes at 1024x876 but the resolution I saw elseehere (sax?) was 1280 x 1024.
john
What size is your screen? If it's a 15" then go for 1024x768@60Hz. If it's a 17" or 19" go with 1280x1024@60Hz. If you have a 20" then go for 1600x1200@60Hz.
Tom
-- John Sowden American Sentry Systems. Inc. 1221 Andersen Drive San Rafael, CA 94901 U.L. Listed Central Station Alarm Service Serving the San Francisco Bay Area Since 1967 mail@americansentry.net http://www.americansentry.net
Tom wrote:
What size is your screen? If it's a 15" then go for 1024x768@60Hz. If it's a 17" or 19" go with 1280x1024@60Hz. If you have a 20" then go for 1600x1200@60Hz.
Standard displays are 4/3 aspect ratio. If that's what yours is, do not choose 1280x1024, which is a bastard 5/4 ratio rarely capable of making a square image display with the same dimensions on all 4 sides. In most cases 1280x1024 on a standard display makes everything shorter than it should be. Instead, choose 1280x960 or 1400x1050, both of which are a standard 4/3 aspect ratio. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/std-resolutions.html -- "Never tire of doing what is right." 2 Thessalonians 3:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
On Monday 30 August 2004 2:17 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
Tom wrote:
What size is your screen? If it's a 15" then go for 1024x768@60Hz. If it's a 17" or 19" go with 1280x1024@60Hz. If you have a 20" then go for 1600x1200@60Hz.
Standard displays are 4/3 aspect ratio. If that's what yours is, do not choose 1280x1024, which is a bastard 5/4 ratio rarely capable of making a square image display with the same dimensions on all 4 sides. In most cases 1280x1024 on a standard display makes everything shorter than it should be. Instead, choose 1280x960 or 1400x1050, both of which are a standard 4/3 aspect ratio. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/std-resolutions.html With the exception that the 2 resolutions you mentioned are not VESA standards. If the bios on the controllers are not rolled with that resolution, then your screen will look really bad.
But heck, give it a shot. It's not like I don't know what I'm talking about: www.neuro-logic.com If it works, let me know. I don't think the Envision has that resolution built into it. -- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com
Tom Nielsen wrote:
On Monday 30 August 2004 2:17 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
Standard displays are 4/3 aspect ratio. If that's what yours is, do not choose 1280x1024, which is a bastard 5/4 ratio rarely capable of making a square image display with the same dimensions on all 4 sides. In most cases 1280x1024 on a standard display makes everything shorter than it should be. Instead, choose 1280x960 or 1400x1050, both of which are a standard 4/3 aspect ratio. http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/auth/std-resolutions.html
With the exception that the 2 resolutions you mentioned are not VESA standards. If the bios on the controllers are not rolled with that resolution, then your screen will look really bad.
Don't be intimidated by graphics card, display, or VESA so-called standards when running Linux X. I have 7 machines here with Linux installed, all but one running the same 9 year old graphics card design with less than 8M of video RAM. The advertised maximum resolution is 1024x768 16M 60 or more Hz, 1280x1024 64K 60 or more Hz, & 1600x1200 256 43I. Neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050 are listed for any combination of refresh or colors, but in Linux, both work very well at 64M. 1280x1024 and its rectangular pixels should never have been made a standard, while 1280x960 is exactly VGA (640x480) times four. -- "Never tire of doing what is right." 2 Thessalonians 3:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
On Monday 30 August 2004 04:26 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
Don't be intimidated by graphics card, display, or VESA so-called standards when running Linux X. I have 7 machines here with Linux installed, all but one running the same 9 year old graphics card design with less than 8M of video RAM. In the below statement, are you talking about the video card or the LCD? "advertised max resolution..." The advertised maximum resolution is 1024x768 16M 60 or more Hz, 1280x1024 64K 60 or more Hz, & 1600x1200 256 43I. Neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050 are listed for any combination of refresh or colors, but in Linux, both work very well at 64M. 1280x1024 and its rectangular pixels should never have been made a standard, while 1280x960 is exactly VGA (640x480) times four. Felix,
I found your comments to be most interesting, so I decided to give it a try. I've got an 18" IBM LCD at home and normally run 1280x1024@60Hz. I tried 1280x960@60Hz to see what happens. Well, the screen looked much worse. Trying to adjust the phase didn't seem to help either. So, I took my LCD into my office and queried the bios to see what resolutions were installed. Only VESA resolutions were in there....which explains why it looked so bad. So I pulled my Envisions 19" off my system (I really didn't have much to do tonight) and tried it out at 960. Same thing...icky. The Envision monitor uses a Fujitsu FMA LCD with an Nvidia chipset on the controller (different from that on the video cards). I checked the bios and it also had VESA settings only on it. Now, I got bored and wanted to go home. But tomorrow I'll check the LCDs that we have custom made from us. I know that resolution isn't in there, but Sun default resolutions are, and maybe it might work. Keep in mind results are not going to be controlled by the video card, but the controller that is used to go with the LCD. Now what's interesting is the custom 15", 17" and 19" LCD we have made for us will run 1600x1200@60Hz and is usable. Not pretty, but it works. That resolution isn't listed on the controller's bios...it just works. What LCD do you have that runs 1280x960 and how old is it? Keep in mind I'm not questioning you, I just want to see what this looks like running at 960. I sincerely am interested. Have you tried running in 1280x1024 to see what it looks like? Is it better or worse? -- ---------------------------- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com ----------------------------
Tom Nielsen wrote on Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:27:44 -0700:
On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 19:26:30 -0400, Felix Miata wrote:
Don't be intimidated by graphics card, display, or VESA so-called standards when running Linux X. I have 7 machines here with Linux installed, all but one running the same 9 year old graphics card design with less than 8M of video RAM.
In the below statement, are you talking about the video card or the LCD?
Nothing I wrote was meant to apply to flat panel displays. The post I originally responded to refered to 17" & 19" @ 1280x1024, making no mention of display type, and I didn't see the OP prior to a (painfully slow) search at http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2004-Aug/index.html after reading your Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:27:44 -0700 post. To me, and with nothing more said, 17" & 19" mean CRT, not LCD. OTOH 16", 18" & 20" to me with nothing more said do refer to flat panel displays.
"advertised max resolution..."
Card.
The advertised maximum resolution is 1024x768 16M 60 or more Hz, 1280x1024 64K 60 or more Hz, & 1600x1200 256 43I. Neither 1280x960 nor 1400x1050 are listed for any combination of refresh or colors, but in Linux, both work very well at 64M. 1280x1024 and its rectangular pixels should never have been made a standard, while 1280x960 is exactly VGA (640x480) times four.
I found your comments to be most interesting, so I decided to give it a try. I've got an 18" IBM LCD at home and normally run 1280x1024@60Hz. I tried 1280x960@60Hz to see what happens. Well, the screen looked much worse. Trying to adjust the phase didn't seem to help either. So, I took my LCD into my office and queried the bios to see what resolutions were installed. Only VESA resolutions were in there....which explains why it looked so bad. So I pulled my Envisions 19" off my system (I really didn't have much to do tonight) and tried it out at 960. Same thing...icky. The Envision monitor uses a Fujitsu FMA LCD with an Nvidia chipset on the controller (different from that on the video cards). I checked the bios and it also had VESA settings only on it. Now, I got bored and wanted to go home. But tomorrow I'll check the LCDs that we have custom made from us. I know that resolution isn't in there, but Sun default resolutions are, and maybe it might work. Keep in mind results are not going to be controlled by the video card, but the controller that is used to go with the LCD.
Now what's interesting is the custom 15", 17" and 19" LCD we have made for us will run 1600x1200@60Hz and is usable. Not pretty, but it works. That resolution isn't listed on the controller's bios...it just works.
What LCD do you have that runs 1280x960 and how old is it? Keep in mind I'm not questioning you, I just want to see what this looks like running at 960. I sincerely am interested. Have you tried running in 1280x1024 to see what it looks like? Is it better or worse?
I have no flat panels, and expect to get none before they evolve to the point of having the flexibility of tubes, meaning no significant degradation running at anything other than native ideal, much less a native ideal 5/4 logical aspect ratio mushed into a 4/3 physical viewspace. If I had to have a nominal 4/3 flat panel display, it would be native SXGA+ or UXGA, not native SXGA. FWIW, the displays I currently use are 17" Sony 200GS (max advertised 1280x1024) and 19" NEC FE990 (max advertised 1792x1344). The Sonys do much better on Linux at either 1280x960 or 1400x1050 than doze does 1280x1024. In fact, doze does better on the Sonys at 1600x1200 than it does at 1280x1024, not even considering the aspect distortion of the latter. -- "Never tire of doing what is right." 2 Thessalonians 3:13 NIV Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 Felix Miata *** http://members.ij.net/mrmazda/
On Monday 30 August 2004 11:18 pm, Felix Miata wrote:
Nothing I wrote was meant to apply to flat panel displays. The post I originally responded to refered to 17" & 19" @ 1280x1024, making no mention of display type, and I didn't see the OP prior to a (painfully slow) search at http://lists.suse.com/archive/suse-linux-e/2004-Aug/index.html after reading your Mon, 30 Aug 2004 22:27:44 -0700 post.
To me, and with nothing more said, 17" & 19" mean CRT, not LCD. OTOH 16", 18" & 20" to me with nothing more said do refer to flat panel displays. Alrighty then....that explains it all. The OP said Envision, but never said LCD specifically. I just happened to know that Envision was an LCD...I have one :-)
I have no flat panels, and expect to get none before they evolve to the point of having the flexibility of tubes, meaning no significant degradation running at anything other than native ideal, much less a native ideal 5/4 logical aspect ratio mushed into a 4/3 physical viewspace. If I had to have a nominal 4/3 flat panel display, it would be native SXGA+ or UXGA, not native SXGA.
Understood....When we have problems with testing video cards and LCDs we use good old tubes. Tubes are great because they will sync to everything. I just switched from a tube about 2 years ago because I couldn't find an LCD that offered enough contract. This 19" does 700:1 which is pretty good for a $600 LCD.
FWIW, the displays I currently use are 17" Sony 200GS (max advertised 1280x1024) and 19" NEC FE990 (max advertised 1792x1344). The Sonys do much better on Linux at either 1280x960 or 1400x1050 than doze does 1280x1024. In fact, doze does better on the Sonys at 1600x1200 than it does at 1280x1024, not even considering the aspect distortion of the latter.
I might go down and try a tube a bit later. It would be interesting to see because I never ran anything other than vesa standards or Sun (1152x900@66Hz). Thanks for the info.
-- "Never tire of doing what is right." 2 Thessalonians 3:13 NIV Amen
-- Tom Nielsen Neuro Logic Systems, Inc. 1.805.389.5435 x18 www.neuro-logic.com
* Tom Nielsen
What LCD do you have that runs 1280x960 and how old is it? Keep in mind I'm not questioning you, I just want to see what this looks like running at 960. I sincerely am interested. Have you tried running in 1280x1024 to see what it looks like? Is it better or worse?
My NEC LCD-1912 is set at 1280x960 now, but I do not like it and will change it back. TNT2 video card. Control Center -> Peripherals -> Display -> Screen size: also 1152x864 896x672 832x624 640x512 576x432 just to mention a few of the others. -- Patrick Shanahan Registered Linux User #207535 http://wahoo.no-ip.org @ http://counter.li.org HOG # US1244711 Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/photos
participants (4)
-
Felix Miata
-
John Sowden
-
Patrick Shanahan
-
Tom Nielsen