|
Arrowsmith posted:What kind of refresh rates were they using at those resolutions? Up to 80hz, it looks like. With VGA, you're not limited by what a spec defines, you're limited by the weaker of the two ends (your video card, or your monitor). If both ends are good enough (and your cable as well), it can support pretty much any resolution or refresh rate. VGA just gets a bad name because if either one of those components isn't up to snuff, it goes to poo poo (and I know from first hand experience there were plenty of mainstream video cards with poo poo VGA output).
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
If the catleap we've been making GBS threads ourselves over is available in the UK, it might be attainable for not too much more than that.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 15, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
thegasman2000 posted:The Crossover (korean) Monitor I have only accepts DVI. Its the DVI with no VGA pins on it. I have a mini DP to DP, HDMI and DVI adapter and this runs my TV fine through HDMI. The DVI does not work at all. I obtained a HDMI to DVI adapter and this again doest run the monitor. Can anyone point me in the right direction? Should I bin both these adapters and buy an active mini DP to DVI adapter? I can't give any firm information, but I can tell you that to run 2560x1440 over DVI you have to have a dual-link DVI. You're going to have to get an active dual-link DVI adapter of some sort.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 16, 2012 18:09
|
|
|
HalloKitty posted:The visual difference simply isn't going to be that horrible. We're not talking about walls of text here. It's not walls of text, but there still tends to be a fair amount of small text, and lots of well-defined lines (particularly among UI elements), and generally aren't created with the consideration of maintaining visual clarity when someone's viewing with a crappy old SD CRT. Games definitely scale significantly worse than most video.
|
|
#
¿
May 25, 2012 18:58
|
|
|
If you have to ask whether we'd recommend a TN panel or an IPS panel, you haven't done enough reading of the thread. (hint: get the Dell)
|
|
#
¿
May 29, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
I just use plain old water. It's really not that big of a deal as long as you don't use a solvent strong enough to melt your screen.
|
|
#
¿
May 30, 2012 21:17
|
|
|
If you can't get an exact match, you should try to get something similar in pixel density, color characteristics (e.g. both using same backlight type), and quality. I also think it's a lot more comfortable to use if the resolutions on the shared edge are within about 50 pixels of each other, although I know plenty of people like to do one landscape, one portrait with matching 16:9 monitors.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 5, 2012 21:40
|
|
|
If you want 'prettier', then probably your only choice is the 27" Apple Cinema Display. That's going to be way out of your price range though. The HP ZR2740 is a somewhat cheaper non-Dell option that still has a warranty.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2012 16:29
|
|
|
Fatal posted:It appears that the blue subpixel is actually malfunctioning since it only shows up when I'm looking at something completely black. If you're going to have a stuck subpixel, blue is the best color for it to be; our eyes are less sensitive to it by a considerable margin. I've had a stuck blue subpixel on a monitor I've been using for 7 years now, and I have never noticed it when I wasn't actually looking for it (and even if I look for it, it's hard to find).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 28, 2012 05:53
|
|
|
They usually do it pretty well these days. You really can't tell the difference.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 9, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
Cicero posted:If you have a monitor in portrait mode, is there an easy way to get windows to take up half the screen vertically instead of horizontally? This post suggests WinSplit will do what you want. There isn't a way to do it built-in.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2012 23:06
|
|
|
dox posted:Would a 23" be too big for one of the monitors? What size should I go for? More important than the monitor size, try to avoid 16:9 (e.g. get 1680x1050 or 1920x1200). Using two very wide monitors can be kind of ridiculous, since you usually need more vertical space than horizontal space.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Tedronai66 posted:Those are both 16:10 I am aware of that  But 4:3 is impossible to find now, so it's the best you can reasonably do.Coincidentally, I just replaced my two 7 year old 1600x1200 monitors, with a 27" Crossover. Holy crap, wow, it looks drat good. Unfortunately, I am getting a bit of high pitched electrical whine from it; has anyone else encountered that?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 19:44
|
|
|
DarkJC posted:I don't think he was talking about the physical space at all. Rather, he was saying that most activities on the computer benefit from having more vertical screen space, so go for 16:10 if you can (and if you don't mind black bars on 16:9 content) That, and field of view. Wider displays make it harder to effectively use both displays. It's also more awkward if you want to put one of them in portrait mode.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2012 22:32
|
|
|
The price jump is a lot smaller when you buy one of the $300 27" Korean monitors off of eBay. But if you just want to watch video, a TV will serve you just fine.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 13, 2012 20:22
|
|
|
DrDork posted:Many laptop cards are limited to 1920x1080. You also have anyone who'd want to use a PS3/XBox on it. Also people like me who have their normal desktop system as well as a NAS or other server with onboard VGA-out only. And also, lots of cards only have HDMI or DisplayPort output. HDMI can go to single-link DVI with a simple converter, but not dual link.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 19, 2012 16:33
|
|
|
The crossover stand has tilt, which is nice, but it still wobbles with a light breeze. If you don't need height adjustment, and have a sturdy desk, then the Crossover stand is alright.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
Daimo posted:There's also a possibility that the card is damaged as the postman dropped it through the letterbox It's not sensitive to impact (absent manufacturing defects). He could have drop kicked it and the worst you'd risk would be a rattly fan (and even that's still unlikely, since the packaging cushions it).
|
|
#
¿
Jul 25, 2012 18:15
|
|
, but it's fine externally.
|
Daimo posted:Are there any high performance usb graphics cards? You mean like, gaming high performance? Not likely. I don't have any first hand experience, but USB 3 video adapters should be able to normal 2D desktop stuff without much trouble.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2012 20:19
|
|
|
fookolt posted:Is a Dell 3007WFP-HC vulnerable to burn-in? I was playing Borderlands and I saw a ghost image of my Firefox bookmarks toolbar. It went away after a while but drat, that freaked me out. Burn-in, no. What you're seeing is Image Persistence. It's not permanent, but it will keep getting worse as your monitor ages. It's what finally convinced me to replace my 2001FPs, after 7 years of service.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 6, 2012 21:20
|
|
|
The March Hare posted:I ordered mine from Dream-seller on the 4th and got it in yesterday with a very nice little letter letting me know that there have been some issues w/ my model lately so they opened and tested the monitor prior to shipping it on the house. I got two of those letters in mine, one saying they checked it and it was fine, and the other saying there were issues and sorry for the delay  Mine was shipped promptly.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 10, 2012 16:03
|
|
|
bonj posted:Most TVs that claim 120hz are actually just adding synthesized in-between frames and don't actually run at a true 120hz, and I think that is the case with the model we have -- it can't really be pushed beyond 60hz. I don't understand it fully, but I'm sure someone else could explain. It's not so much that it can't actually run at 120hz, that it can't take input at more than 60hz. I think it was a limitation of HDMI at the time, although I'm not sure on that.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2012 22:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 11, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
nite time dinosaur posted:A passive adapter will work. That monitor's maximum resolution is 1080p (1920x1080), and passive adapters are fine as long as the resolution you want is 1920x1200 or less. You've got the right answer, but for the wrong reason. The display resolution allows you to use an un-powered, but still active, adapter (as opposed to the significantly more expensive powered active adapters). dbcooper can indeed use a passive adapter, but that is because his computer (like many Lenovo systems) supports sending a DVI signal through the DisplayPort connector.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2012 15:33
|
|