Re: Solved with a modeline: Re: NEC2080UX+ - "Supported Future Video Modes"
From: William Ballard (40521.nospam_at_comcast.net)
Date: 06/10/04
- Previous message: Simon L: "Re: Debain+Fedora+Mandrake+Suse"
- In reply to: Erik Steffl: "Re: Solved with a modeline: Re: NEC2080UX+ - "Supported Future Video Modes""
- Next in thread: William Ballard: "Re: Solved with a modeline: Re: NEC2080UX+ - "Supported Future Video Modes""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 10 Jun 2004 05:10:10 -0700 To: debian-user@lists.debian.org
On Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 10:47:30PM -0700, Erik Steffl wrote:
> I wonder why would edid info (that comes directly from monitor, as
> far as I can tell) result in worse settings then what X does based on
> vert/horiz frequencies.
I don't know. It's an 18" flat panel monitor who's "natural resolution"
is 1280x1024@60 -- if you run at other sizes, the pixels look funny
because they are fixed size, and I don't know what happens when you run
at other frequencies but they are similarly "synthetic." One observes
this as "tearing" of full-motion video, and DirectX always runs at 60
anyway.
In Windows, the "Modes this monitor can support" are 60 and 70, and you
can uncheck "Hide modes this monitor can't support" and run at 85.
Maybe the EDID lists frequencies it *can* support, and this is the first
time that "the highest possible" frequency is not the best one -- in
fact the "lowest" supported frequency is best.
-- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-REQUEST@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
- Previous message: Simon L: "Re: Debain+Fedora+Mandrake+Suse"
- In reply to: Erik Steffl: "Re: Solved with a modeline: Re: NEC2080UX+ - "Supported Future Video Modes""
- Next in thread: William Ballard: "Re: Solved with a modeline: Re: NEC2080UX+ - "Supported Future Video Modes""
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|