Ο <phil-news-nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:g3j9mo01j0n@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 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?
>
> --
To get my Samsung 20" 1280 * 960 I had to place a special order;although
my
graphic card (Asus ATI 2600 pro) is dual head, also comes with 2 DVI
plugs,
the monitor that the vendor matched, was a VGA one, so I had to use
DAC->ADC
with all cons. (www.cccira.gr) The order took 10 days to process, as if I
was asking something exotic. Anyway, it's a good monitor.(It's
widescreen).
It cost 250 euros.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
|
