Re: DVI switch

In alt.engineering.electrical Bob Myers <nospamplease@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

| <phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
| news:g3hqjb0rv8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
| \
|>
|> 1920x1200 (WUXGA) is a single link format.  Single link can go all the
way 
|> up
|> to 2098x1311 for odd formats.  2048x1152 (non-standard, but sensible) 
|> format
|> would also be doable on single link.  Dual link could go up to
2960x1850.
| 
| Well, at least per the pixel clock limits on both single- and dual-link
| DVI, they sure could.  The problem is, though, that the DVI standard
| never included a decent compliance certification test, nor is there any
| good spec on cabling, switches, and the like that would truly ensure
| that you can run full rates over any given comibination of such things.
| So as you approach the top-end clock spec, some will work, and
| some may not.

Here's another one I found.  It has a _higher_ resolution limit
(1920x1440)
but it has some suspicious words in the tech specs saying "This products
is
not intended for use with Widescreen displays".

http://www.startech.com/item-specs/SV421DVI-4-****t-StarView-DVI-KVM-Switch.aspx

So what could that possibly mean?  Could it really be that these switches
are
messing around with the EDID data or other parameters affected by the
specific
geometry, and are not designed for the 16:10 geometries?

-- 
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked.  Due to
ignorance |
|         by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked.  If you post
to  |
|         Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP.    
   |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at
ipal.net) |