Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during installation or usage?
Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via emacs. More info per eye full. Eventually, I'd like to add a TV card and get HDTV thru the setup since one of my TV's just died.
Hints?
"Bill" == Bill Gradwohl bill@ycc.com writes:
Bill> Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) Bill> running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of Bill> LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during Bill> installation or usage?
Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
George Yanos wrote:
Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
4x3 multiplied by a constant factor of , say 4, gives you 16x12, or multiplied by 3 gives you 12x9. Its my understanding that 16x9 is the HDTV format where the older 4x3 is the one we are all familiar with.
On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 15:36, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during installation or usage?
I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at all. Afterall, it just recieves a picture and neither knows nor cares if it comes from Windows/Linux or anything else.
I just put GNOME into a 16:9 resolution wihtout any problems. Since the computer doesn't need to know the physical side of the monitor It's a good bet that so long as the panel doesn't do anything REALLY stupid (like violate the DVI spec) you won't have any problems.
Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via emacs. More info per eye full.
Really?
Most 16:9 monitors I see are lower resolution versions of the more square equivalent. For example, I have a 5:4 19inch TFT which runs at 1280x1024. The 16:9 version is more expensive but uses 1280x720 - about 30% less pixels.
At a given diagonal size the area of a 16:9 screen will also be less, although wider. A 19inch 5:4er is 14.8x11.9, or 176 sq inches, whereas a 16:9er is 16.6x9.2, or 107 sq inches. So about 40% less area.
On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 15:42, George Yanos wrote:
"Bill" == Bill Gradwohl bill@ycc.com writes:
Bill> Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (orFC3tX) Bill> running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of Bill> LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during Bill> installation or usage?
Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
132.
It should really be written 16:9 and 4:3, because it is the ratio of the screens width to height.
"Jim" == Jim Higson jh@333.org writes:
Jim> On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 15:42, George Yanos wrote: >> >>>>> "Bill" == Bill Gradwohl bill@ycc.com writes: >> Bill> Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or >> FC3tX) Bill> running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what >> brand/model of Bill> LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. >> Any glitches during Bill> installation or usage? >> >> Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
Jim> 132.
He He He He Haah!
Jim> It should really be written 16:9 and 4:3, because it is the ratio of the Jim> screens width to height.
Just for the fun of it, I have a 1600x1200, or 1600:1200 or 16:9 or 4:3 screen on my Thinkpad t42p and don't think I could live without it. Others look at my screen and say that they can't see the letters. I sit (with my old man's trifocals) close enough that the small text is clear and think the added information of a 250x100 text window is worth sitting closer.
Jim Higson wrote:
I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at all. Afterall, it just recieves a picture and neither knows nor cares if it comes from Windows/Linux or anything else.
I just put GNOME into a 16:9 resolution wihtout any problems. Since the computer doesn't need to know the physical side of the monitor It's a good bet that so long as the panel doesn't do anything REALLY stupid (like violate the DVI spec) you won't have any problems.
After reading about all the nvidia problems, I'm just trying to find a board/display that works. I'm not certain that DVI is the way to go or not.
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is. Jan L. A. van de Snepscheut
In theory you're right, but in practice, it makes a difference. Some displays are better than others, or else there would only be one manufacturer. www.tomshardware.com provides some input, but they are Windows centric. O/S's these days try to get the make and model of the display from the hardware itself to help configure the video system. My current old 20" monitor is too stupid to supply such data. I'd like to find one that both Windows and Linux can recognize.
Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via emacs. More info per eye full.
Really?
Most 16:9 monitors I see are lower resolution versions of the more square equivalent. For example, I have a 5:4 19inch TFT which runs at 1280x1024. The 16:9 version is more expensive but uses 1280x720 - about 30% less pixels.
At a given diagonal size the area of a 16:9 screen will also be less, although wider. A 19inch 5:4er is 14.8x11.9, or 176 sq inches, whereas a 16:9er is 16.6x9.2, or 107 sq inches. So about 40% less area.
This is personal preference more than anything else, and I may end up not liking the wider format. I've not tried it yet. :-) That's why I'm asking for input from folks who have already made the leap.
Although I agree with your arithmetic, metaphorically speaking you advocate purchasing a Ferrari because it has more horsepower than the SUV. I want to try an SUV.
I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if I were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its just not comfortable for me. I find I always want the width more than the height. A piece of information is usually listed horizontally, not vertically. I'd like to read the log lines in one eye full as opposed to scrolling right for example.
I'd also like to stop my self imposed practice of writing code \ limiting each line to around 80 columns. That's from my 026 \ keypunch days on a mainframe. With a wider screen, its more\ likely I'll use the width to put an entire thought on one line as \ opposed to doing line continuations because theres a better chance \ that the line will hold the entire thought. i.e long if statements, etc.
Like it or not, HDTV format will take over in my opinion. I've already seen some laptops, Toshiba I believe, and they're georgeous, except they still use those miserable tiny keyboards (lots of empty space left and right of the keys - what's the point of that). Since one of my TVs quit, and my 1995 vintage 20" heats the room I'm in (literally), I figured its time to lower my electric bill, get rid of the radiation, and get a more modern form factor all at the same time. I'm just not sure what to get.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, George Yanos wrote:
"Bill" == Bill Gradwohl bill@ycc.com writes:
Bill> Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) Bill> running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of Bill> LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during Bill> installation or usage?Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
16:9 and 4:3...the "x" was, I believe a typo.
It's the difference between your normal TV screens and your wide screen HD TV screens.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 12:03:12 -0600, Bill Gradwohl bill@ycc.com wrote:
Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via emacs. More info per eye full.
For my money (well, actually for my employer's money, but that's neither here nor there), you can't beat dualhead for development work. It rocks to be able to have gvim opened full screen on my main monitor (the one directly in front of me) and a manpage, article, reference code, etc., open on the other monitor.
I'd also like to stop my self imposed practice of writing code \ limiting each line to around 80 columns. That's from my 026 \ keypunch days on a mainframe. With a wider screen, its more\ likely I'll use the width to put an entire thought on one line as \ opposed to doing line continuations because theres a better chance \ that the line will hold the entire thought. i.e long if statements, etc.
I've been known to expand the editor over both screens to get a superwide window (about 416 columns). I never linebreak code unless it symantically requires it.
I run two 19" monitors at 1280x1024 (5:4 aspect ratio), for a total display size of 2560x1024, which is comfortable for nearly everything. Nvidia/Twinview is nice in that you can also define modes that only use one monitor and xrandr can adjust between them on the fly.
Bill Gradwohl wrote:
I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if I were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its just not comfortable for me.
As you say, it's personal preference. Personally, I tend to increase the screen size and then increase the font size to compensate. You may find that your text is actually the same size, but less blocky: I find that easier to read.
James.
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
George Yanos wrote:
Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
4x3 multiplied by a constant factor of , say 4, gives you 16x12, or multiplied by 3 gives you 12x9. Its my understanding that 16x9 is the HDTV format where the older 4x3 is the one we are all familiar with.
16x9 is the aspect ratio of the display, in the US terrestial hdtv broadcasts the video itself is typically encoded at 1920x1080x60hz interlaced or 1280x720x60hz progressive.
joelja
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, James Wilkinson wrote:
Bill Gradwohl wrote:
I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if I were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its just not comfortable for me.
As you say, it's personal preference. Personally, I tend to increase the screen size and then increase the font size to compensate. You may find that your text is actually the same size, but less blocky: I find that easier to read.
Increasing the resolution of your text will almost allways make it more more readable. I fit about the same number of 80x25 terminals on my 1920x1440 21" crt (4-6 per page) as I used to on a 15" 1024x768 tube. assuming the same font size, at ~150dpi each character is composed of about 4x more pixels then it is at 72dpi which is the alleged norm for monitors. it's still about 1/8 the number of dots a reasonable laser printer will assemble the same character out of.
James.
From: "Joel Jaeggli" joelja@darkwing.uoregon.edu
On Sun, 31 Oct 2004, James Wilkinson wrote:
Bill Gradwohl wrote:
I run my 20" at 1024x768. If I were 20 years old; said another way, if
I
were 35 years younger, I'd probably crank up the resolution, but its just not comfortable for me.
As you say, it's personal preference. Personally, I tend to increase the screen size and then increase the font size to compensate. You may find that your text is actually the same size, but less blocky: I find that easier to read.
Increasing the resolution of your text will almost allways make it more more readable. I fit about the same number of 80x25 terminals on my 1920x1440 21" crt (4-6 per page) as I used to on a 15" 1024x768 tube. assuming the same font size, at ~150dpi each character is composed of about 4x more pixels then it is at 72dpi which is the alleged norm for monitors. it's still about 1/8 the number of dots a reasonable laser printer will assemble the same character out of.
One might wish more web sites could "adapt" in this regard. Too many override the user's "make the damn text bigger you freaking as*!" preferences selections in the interests of their artistic expression. May the pox of a thousand whores infest their genitals!
{O.O} (Can you tell you hit one of Joanne's hot buttons? My eyes are older than yours so it's REALLY valuable to have better formed letters and larger text sizes. 6 point text just does not make it. I can't see 1mil gold bonding wires anymore with my bare eyeballs.)
On Sunday 31 October 2004 05:47 pm, jdow wrote:
snip
One might wish more web sites could "adapt" in this regard. Too many override the user's "make the damn text bigger you freaking as*!" preferences selections in the interests of their artistic expression. May the pox of a thousand whores infest their genitals!
{O.O} (Can you tell you hit one of Joanne's hot buttons? My eyes are older than yours so it's REALLY valuable to have better formed letters and larger text sizes. 6 point text just does not make it. I can't see 1mil gold bonding wires anymore with my bare eyeballs.)
Joanne: I've got the same T-shirt. Mine is probably older and more faded, but... here's some ways that I've worked around the issue; perhaps they'll lower your blood pressure:
1. Both Konqueror and Mozilla (and probably others) can be configured so that you can gradually increase/decrease the displayed font size by rotating the mouse wheel while depressing the shift key. You can blow up that teeny tiny stuff that looks like a line to the size that they use on Interstate signs. I find it much more effective than either the "increase/decrease font size" tool used on some browsers or the min/max font settings.
2. Get some terminal glasses (or whatever the eye doctor people call them). These have lenses that work at a single fixed distance. You'll have to put up with the nuisance of swapping glasses every time you change from terminal staring to other tasks. But you will be less fatigued at the end of the day.
3. About those 1 mil leads: Tell your boss that you need an inspection lamp -- they have a magnifying lens surrounded by a circular flourescent lamp. Not only will it improve your productivity, but you won't be thinking up with those nasty curses on his dollar.
-- cmg
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 19:49, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
On Sunday 31 October 2004 05:47 pm, jdow wrote:
snip
One might wish more web sites could "adapt" in this regard. Too many override the user's "make the damn text bigger you freaking as*!" preferences selections in the interests of their artistic expression. May the pox of a thousand whores infest their genitals!
{O.O} (Can you tell you hit one of Joanne's hot buttons? My eyes are older than yours so it's REALLY valuable to have better formed letters and larger text sizes. 6 point text just does not make it. I can't see 1mil gold bonding wires anymore with my bare eyeballs.)
Joanne: I've got the same T-shirt. Mine is probably older and more faded, but... here's some ways that I've worked around the issue; perhaps they'll lower your blood pressure:
- Both Konqueror and Mozilla (and probably others) can be configured so that
you can gradually increase/decrease the displayed font size by rotating the mouse wheel while depressing the shift key. You can blow up that teeny tiny stuff that looks like a line to the size that they use on Interstate signs. I find it much more effective than either the "increase/decrease font size" tool used on some browsers or the min/max font settings.
- Get some terminal glasses (or whatever the eye doctor people call them).
These have lenses that work at a single fixed distance. You'll have to put up with the nuisance of swapping glasses every time you change from terminal staring to other tasks. But you will be less fatigued at the end of the day.
- About those 1 mil leads: Tell your boss that you need an inspection lamp --
they have a magnifying lens surrounded by a circular flourescent lamp. Not only will it improve your productivity, but you won't be thinking up with those nasty curses on his dollar.
-- cmg
I don't know what was above the snip, but my mother is legally blind, she only has a small spot on one eye that can see. She uses zoom text by I think AI squared. It's bloody expensive and only for windows, well the last time I checked. I put a TV card in her PC and it displays on a 35" TV. It supports 2 monitors so I just put a regular monitor on the computer table for everyone else since when you exit zoom text the screen is just too fuzzy as a TV has a very low res.
The federal government has allot for low vision and blind people, as well they should it costs them less then one good bomb. No I'm not a liberal, just the opposite, but I think the army can do with out a couple of bombs or a tank ( or a stupid transit project ) to help out citizens of the USA.
And BTW your employer is required to help you do your job, Safeco Ins. was very good to my mother while she could work. But it came time to end her job, they wanted her to stick it out awhile longer since the "kids" needed the help of someone with experience, even though she couldn't see well. Not being able to see is a disability, so remind your boss that they MUST make sure you can do your job.
Tim...
From: "Carroll Grigsby" cgrigs@earthlink.net
On Sunday 31 October 2004 05:47 pm, jdow wrote:
snip
One might wish more web sites could "adapt" in this regard. Too many override the user's "make the damn text bigger you freaking as*!" preferences selections in the interests of their artistic expression. May the pox of a thousand whores infest their genitals!
{O.O} (Can you tell you hit one of Joanne's hot buttons? My eyes are older than yours so it's REALLY valuable to have better formed letters and larger text sizes. 6 point text just does not make it. I can't see 1mil gold bonding wires anymore with my bare eyeballs.)
Joanne: I've got the same T-shirt. Mine is probably older and more faded, but... here's some ways that I've worked around the issue; perhaps they'll lower your blood pressure:
- Both Konqueror and Mozilla (and probably others) can be configured so
that
you can gradually increase/decrease the displayed font size by rotating
the
mouse wheel while depressing the shift key. You can blow up that teeny
tiny
stuff that looks like a line to the size that they use on Interstate
signs. I
find it much more effective than either the "increase/decrease font size" tool used on some browsers or the min/max font settings.
A means to magnify the screen by non-integer values might be useful if that in itself did not introduce it's own fuzz.
- Get some terminal glasses (or whatever the eye doctor people call
them).
These have lenses that work at a single fixed distance. You'll have to put
up
with the nuisance of swapping glasses every time you change from terminal staring to other tasks. But you will be less fatigued at the end of the
day.
Got 'em, in spades.
- About those 1 mil leads: Tell your boss that you need an inspection
lamp -- > they have a magnifying lens surrounded by a circular flourescent lamp. Not
only will it improve your productivity, but you won't be thinking up with those nasty curses on his dollar.
I'm my own boss these days. And I've graduated from the RF labs to writing software for broadcast video gadgets. But I really did used to be able to see 1 mil bonding wires much to the surprise of my co-workers, who had forgotten how well they could see at 25 or so. These days it's nifty to still be able to see, you might say. (And have you ever tried to see a bit? Those puppies are REALLY small these days.)
{^_-}
From: "Timothy Payne" tim@tmpco.com
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 19:49, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
On Sunday 31 October 2004 05:47 pm, jdow wrote:
snip
One might wish more web sites could "adapt" in this regard. Too many override the user's "make the damn text bigger you freaking as*!" preferences selections in the interests of their artistic expression. May the pox of a thousand whores infest their genitals!
{O.O} (Can you tell you hit one of Joanne's hot buttons? My eyes are older than yours so it's REALLY valuable to have better formed letters and larger text sizes. 6 point text just does not make it. I can't see 1mil gold bonding wires anymore with my bare eyeballs.)
Joanne: I've got the same T-shirt. Mine is probably older and more faded, but... here's some ways that I've worked around the issue; perhaps they'll
lower
your blood pressure:
- Both Konqueror and Mozilla (and probably others) can be configured so
that
you can gradually increase/decrease the displayed font size by rotating
the
mouse wheel while depressing the shift key. You can blow up that teeny
tiny
stuff that looks like a line to the size that they use on Interstate
signs. I
find it much more effective than either the "increase/decrease font
size"
tool used on some browsers or the min/max font settings.
- Get some terminal glasses (or whatever the eye doctor people call
them).
These have lenses that work at a single fixed distance. You'll have to
put up
with the nuisance of swapping glasses every time you change from
terminal
staring to other tasks. But you will be less fatigued at the end of the
day.
- About those 1 mil leads: Tell your boss that you need an inspection
lamp --
they have a magnifying lens surrounded by a circular flourescent lamp.
Not
only will it improve your productivity, but you won't be thinking up
with
those nasty curses on his dollar.
-- cmg
I don't know what was above the snip, but my mother is legally blind, she only has a small spot on one eye that can see. She uses zoom text by I think AI squared. It's bloody expensive and only for windows, well the last time I checked. I put a TV card in her PC and it displays on a 35" TV. It supports 2 monitors so I just put a regular monitor on the computer table for everyone else since when you exit zoom text the screen is just too fuzzy as a TV has a very low res.
The federal government has allot for low vision and blind people, as well they should it costs them less then one good bomb. No I'm not a liberal, just the opposite, but I think the army can do with out a couple of bombs or a tank ( or a stupid transit project ) to help out citizens of the USA.
And BTW your employer is required to help you do your job, Safeco Ins. was very good to my mother while she could work. But it came time to end her job, they wanted her to stick it out awhile longer since the "kids" needed the help of someone with experience, even though she couldn't see well. Not being able to see is a disability, so remind your boss that they MUST make sure you can do your job.
Tim...
As a sole proprietor software consultant my employer takes good care of me in terms of equipment, which is one of the basic problems. I like to see A LOT. I run my ViewSonic p225 at 1920x1440x32 colors. I set the font sizes larger for things like Visual Studio (the best computer game in the known universe - you fight with the OS, the compiler, and the documentation all at once!) so that I can work "My way." The gripe is the frozcrabrottengefingular pardukas who insist web sites will be viewed THEIR way or not at all. The sole solace I have is that someday they, too, will get old. Nature has its revenge on them for their mis- treatment and disrespect of their elders. (I'm getting mine now.)
{^_-}
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 09:42, George Yanos wrote:
"Bill" == Bill Gradwohl bill@ycc.com writes:
Bill> Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) Bill> running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of Bill> LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during Bill> installation or usage?Have I missed something, is there a difference between 16x9 and 4x3?
yes, 4X3 would be equivalent to 16X12. 16X9 is widescreen.
--
- George Yanos * *
- UTC at UIC * *
- 312-413-0059(w) * *
- 708-848-4221(h) * *
- gyanos@uic.edu * *
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 10:43, Jim Higson wrote:
On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 15:36, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during installation or usage?
I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at all. Afterall, it just recieves a picture and neither knows nor cares if it comes from Windows/Linux or anything else.
I just put GNOME into a 16:9 resolution wihtout any problems. Since the computer doesn't need to know the physical side of the monitor It's a good bet that so long as the panel doesn't do anything REALLY stupid (like violate the DVI spec) you won't have any problems.
Initially, I want to use the wider screen format for writing C code via emacs. More info per eye full.
Really?
Most 16:9 monitors I see are lower resolution versions of the more square equivalent. For example, I have a 5:4 19inch TFT which runs at 1280x1024. The 16:9 version is more expensive but uses 1280x720 - about 30% less pixels.
1280X720 is the pixel version of 16X9 aspect. How do you get that is lower resolution? It just makes the image fit the display.
If you look at the image ratio of the 1280X1024 it is actually 4:3.2 (commonly referred to as 4:3).
For two screens of the exact same width in the 2 ratios, the widescreen format would have fewer pixels displayed, but not a lower resolution.
Remember, Resolution means pixels per inch (the dot pitch), not pixels on the screen.
At a given diagonal size the area of a 16:9 screen will also be less, although wider. A 19inch 5:4er is 14.8x11.9, or 176 sq inches, whereas a 16:9er is 16.6x9.2, or 107 sq inches. So about 40% less area.
jdow wrote:
A means to magnify the screen by non-integer values might be useful if that in itself did not introduce it's own fuzz.
In case someone doesn't know, Ctrl+Alt plus the plus or minus keys *on the numeric keypad* cycle through the resolutions defined in the X configuration file. The desktop resolution doesn't change, though: you get to use the mouse to scroll around the screen.
So if you normally run in 1600 by 1200, you can go down to 640 by 480 to take a look at the details.
I like using this for reading webcomics, which *do* get fuzzy on 1600 by 1200 on a 17" CRT, and obviously don't get scaled up by Mozilla.
Hope this helps,
James.
On Sun, 2004-10-31 at 16:43 +0000, Jim Higson wrote:
On Sunday 31 Oct 2004 15:36, Bill Gradwohl wrote:
Is anyone using a 19" or larger 16x9 aspect ratio LCD on FC2 (or FC3tX) running Gnome as the GUI? If so, I'd like to know what brand/model of LCD and video board you're using and if you like it. Any glitches during installation or usage?
I very much doubt the brand or model of monitor will make any difference at all.
Not even a little bit true, particularly if you're using something that doesn't really believe it's a computer monitor. Case in point: I spent half a day getting a 42" NEC plasma TV working with FC2, just the other day.
Monitors and TVs with VGA connectors export their display capabilities to the computers they're connected to using EDID (Extended Display Identification Data), a VESA standard.
The particular NEC TV I was stuck with had both component, composite, VGA and DVI inputs, but the DVI connector didn't work, so I hooked it up to my machine's VGA output.
Looking at the EDID records from the Xorg log, it quickly became clear that the TV was lying about the display resolutions it supported. The TV's native resolution was 853x480 (common for cheap plasma TVs), but its EDID swore up and down that it supported every resolution under the sun *except* 853x480.
Of course, all of the other supported resolutions were either stretched or squashed by the TV's interpolation hardware, and were either illegible (the squashed ones) or horribly ugly (the stretched ones).
I had to write my own Xorg Modeline to get the TV working properly, with no interpolation of pixels. If you've ever tried doing this, it's horribly painful, especially if (as in the case of this NEC TV) you can't obtain some of the critical information you need, such as the dot clock frequency of the TV.
It took me several hours to tweak the modeline, but I did eventually get it working. I would not expect someone who was either not tenacious or not highly competent to have succeeded with this TV at all.
Plain old computer monitors are a solved problem, but LCD TVs and plasma TVs and so on just don't seem to get much testing with computer hardware yet.
<b
On Monday, Nov 1st 2004 at 11:52 -0800, quoth Bryan O'Sullivan:
=>It took me several hours to tweak the modeline, but I did eventually get =>it working. I would not expect someone who was either not tenacious or =>not highly competent to have succeeded with this TV at all. => =>Plain old computer monitors are a solved problem, but LCD TVs and plasma =>TVs and so on just don't seem to get much testing with computer hardware =>yet.
So now it's your turn to contribute. Make sure that the modeline you crafted ends up as part of the modeline library.
On Sunday 31 October 2004 18:29, George Yanos wrote:
Just for the fun of it, I have a 1600x1200, or 1600:1200 or 16:9 or 4:3 screen on my Thinkpad t42p and don't think I could live without it. Others look at my screen and say that they can't see the letters. I sit (with my old man's trifocals) close enough that the small text is clear and think the added information of a 250x100 text window is worth sitting closer.
Perhaps the DisplaySize option for xorg.conf could help with that. Check the xorg docs for it's use (it's straight forward though).
What you can do with it is besides telling X what resolution to use is to tell the display size. This should have impact on the fonts and other displayed items.
It didn't work very well for my display size though (2mx1.5m projector screen ) otherwise it has been a nice feature to solve display issues :-)
Regards, Marcel
-
Ben Steeves -
Bill Gradwohl -
Bryan O'Sullivan -
Carroll Grigsby -
George Yanos -
James Wilkinson -
jdow -
Jeff Vian -
Jim Higson -
Joel Jaeggli -
korgull -
Mike Burger -
Steven W. Orr -
Tim