Monitor
Look, dude, plug the VGA OUTof the laptop into a 1080 display and THEN LOOK! and THEN attempt to set it!
Try dual mode first, then the mode where you switch over to the TV (or whatever).
THAT is how you do it.
Your laptop will ONLY allow you to feed it the native resolve, especially if it is lower than what you are attempting.
All of the software you run on it works inside that realm.
Low res, low GPU intensive capacity. Try anything modern on it, and it pukes.
I run two from one. If I wanted to run 4, I would add a card, not switch out my 1 x 2 for a 1 x 4. That is just dumb on a multi PCI-e MOBO.
You guys know nothing.
It is firmly in the "saw the lame gullible consumer coming" space.
It has nil performance.
Nope, the documentation is lousy.
Because it ain't there on some computers. Someone else has tried and on his it ain't there either. Unfortunately some large PC vendors "customize" such stuff. I wish they'd left it alone.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
When you're wrong, move the goalposts. You do a *lot* of goal post moving.
Monitor
it
I know that, and it's not a laptop. I do not have a 1080 display, what I said is that I was contemplatring buying one. Dragging my desktop into the store is hardly an option. Which is why I wrote to Dell, they answered, and now I know for sure that it woiks.
No workie with desktop.
[...]-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
Same response it was yesterday.
I spoke about a 4 port card that does DVI-D at hi res, and YOU move the "goal posts" and post a shit card that barely can do 4 VGA ports.
Yeah, you're a real bright one there, KiethKeithStain.
You are essentially a goddamned idiot with a keyboard.
You know little or nothing about it, asshole.
You can spend the next several years trying to catch up, but you will not. I have $3000 worth of graphics cards here within arms length to prove it.
My OLD hardware puts your best to shame.
One day is pretty much like the last, because you're *always* wrong, AlwaysWrong.
Not only are you always wrong, but you're a liar, too.
The (in)famous DimBulb is accusing others of not being too bright. That's funny.
AlwaysWrong lives up to his name. Always.
Wow! I'm *so* impressed by the dim bulb's Usenet claims, DimBulb.
You really should try a woman (other than your mommy) some time. You might find that you have no need to brag about your OLD "hardware". You might even get it hard.
Well, folks, the Viewsonic VA2702W arrived and I just conneceted it. Works great. Turns out the graphics card does support 1920*1080 resolution. Doesn't list any Hertzes after connecting the LCD but since I don't watch movies it won't matter.
Of course, slopes in simulations or diagonal lines do not render as nicely as on the CRT. As expected they are more blocky. However, the screen is so huge that I do not have to pan as often when checking layouts and that was the main purpose of the exercise. It's almost like having two monitors except there's no gap. So keep'em layout reviews comin' :-)
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
LCDs don't have the flicker problem that CRTs do. You're most likely running it at 60Hz, which is fine for an LCD, sucks for a CRT.
Now, put two of those together... (actually, I find that x1080 sucks).
I didn't find any flicker issues with the CRT, ever. 60Hz and 72 Hz made no difference. But I was quite careful when selecting lighting for the office. Essentially every lamp that could possible interfere is halogen, only the lamp behind the monitor is CFL.
However, the stair steps on waveform transitions are, of course, much more noticeable with the LCD. The CRT didn't show that, looked almost like on an analog scope. Can't have it all.
Anything larger and the price quintuples. At least. I find that 1080 lines at 18" distance is like the 768 lines I had on the 21" CRT. Just more lines, which is what I needed for Gerber checks :-)
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
What can I say? You long ago established that you're blind. ;-)
It's not an interference problem. Flicker doesn't need another source.
I told you that x1080 wasn't enough. ;-) I don't find "jaggies" a problem anymore.
Where do you see 25.5" 1920x1080 displays for I find that 1080
...and 1200 > 1080. ;-)
Western movie tip... go see the new version of "True Grit" ;-) ...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |
I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.
True, technically it doesn't but it becomes a lot more noticeable if you have a light source with flicker in a similar frequency range.
I've seen the jaggies on super-expensive 1400+ lines LCDs as well. Just a wee bit smaller. Doesn't bother me much though. I became used to them because of DSOs.
1080 is definitely enough for me. It is a pretty perfect resolution for a 27" monitor at 18" away. Now I can see a much larger chunk of a layout without panning all the time. Very nice. I probably could have handled more resolution at that distance and screen size when I was 25 but not after I had to start wearing reading glasses. With a CRT you have the option to reduce the number of lines out of your graphics cart. With LCD you don't really, gets fuzzy.It's $290. There I got a better deal. Slightly less money, more contrast, and 27" :-)
Then I'd have to go to a 30" monitor or sit very close to it. I like space in front of me :-)
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
[...]
Is the new one better than the 60's version with John Wayne? I'd have to drive to the theater alone though, my wife doesn't like Westerns because of all the fights and shooting. Even though we both witnessed a genuine saloon fight in Mariposa after an EMC test session. When the sheriff had cleaned up I thought she'd want to go back to the hotel ... but ... "Let's have another beer". Should have seen all the tourists scurrying about. They thought this only happened on TV :-)
Haven't been at the movie theater in years. One reason is that it's now all digital and you can really see the pixels on the screen. Not so nice.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
running
But with LCDs, the pixels have "memory" (infinite persistence). There is no flicker at all, so no "beat".
Software helps, too.
I don't like mine at work, at all. OrCAD decided to add crap to the screen so took away any pixels I gained by going to 1080. I'd *much* rather have this display (>>>> having two monitors except there's no gap. So keep'em layout reviews
That was just one I tripped across. Is it 4x the price, even per square inch? ;-)
No, the same size monitor works; just a little narrower and taller. 16:10 monitors look dumb, too.
We haven't seen it yet (SWMBO doesn't believe anyone can do it better than The Duke), but I'm told it's a lot closer to the book, rather than being a JW vehicle. People who like westerns have all raved about it. Hollywood reviewers don't seem to like it much (surprise, surprise).
I don't notice pixelization on the big screen at all, and see a lot less in the way of the strobe/motion artifacts of film.
We saw The Tourist, on New Years Eve. It was OK, but the $9.50/ticket was a turn off (we used to get senior tickets for $4.50).
running
I know, I meant with the CRT monitor. With this LCD monitor the manual states to never set the frame rate higher than 60Hz, supposedly something could blow up in there. Beats me why but it says so.
Well, how could it if the traces is skinny? A pixel is a pixel.
He doesn't like hierarchy? Now that's a first. Maybe he grew up in an "anit-authoritarian" family environment where the word hierarchy has been banned from the vocabulary :-)
I don't care how it looks. All I care about is lots of screen area to check layouts for EMI gotchas. During design work the wide form factor has another advantage in that I can keep module spec and CAD open side by side.
-- Regards, Joerg http://www.analogconsultants.com/ "gmail" domain blocked because of excessive spam. Use another domain or send PM.
running
Smear it slightly. The eye can do amazing things.
No, he hasn't seen the point. Yet. Interestingly, he's a big fan of copying (copy - repeat) but doesn't see the advantage of hierarchy. One of the widgets I'm working on has 12 identical, isolated, RS-422 ports, each with a DE-9 connector. Looks like a natural use of hierarchy to me.
Sorry, 16:9 looks dumb. Too narrow.
The aspect ratio of 16:9 is all wrong. 4:3 is actually better for schematics but large screens aren't available. OTOH, 16:10 is better for simulation. I'll take two of each. ;-)
Not really. It's possible to render a readable capital-F in six pixels, using different intensities. I found that hard to believe until I saw it.
Anti-aliasing, done properly at the drawing-API level (and preferably supported by hardware) is just *so* different and effective in smoothing things out - almost like tripling the resolution. All Apple Mac products do this without the software even knowing, BTW. If and when Windows does it, it's an optional feature which may not be utilised by your CAD software.
I use a 1920x1200 24" screen. I think 1080 would be annoying. I could happily use a little more than 1920, say 2048, with extra physical width, but not much more. The other thing? I bought the cheaper Dell panel, not the ultra- sharp, and though the cost was about half, I do find myself annoyed at the restricted colour gamut and accuracy, even after calibrating it to my video card (another feature which is built-in to all Macs).
Clifford Heath.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.