What aspects of a DVI switch (KVM for example) would affect its ability to
handle higher video modes such as 1920 x 1200 (when it can handle 1600 x 1200)?
I'm curious why there are so many DVI switches that have a 1600 x 1200 limit
and can't do 1920 x 1200.
--
|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) |
In article <g3h0sn05u7@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
says...
> What aspects of a DVI switch (KVM for example) would affect its ability to
> handle higher video modes such as 1920 x 1200 (when it can handle 1600 x 1200)?
> I'm curious why there are so many DVI switches that have a 1600 x 1200 limit
> and can't do 1920 x 1200.
What refresh rate? Perhaps it needs Dual Link DVI (DVI-DL) to get
the refresh rate you're looking for at 1920x1200.
In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
| In article <g3h0sn05u7@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| says...
|> What aspects of a DVI switch (KVM for example) would affect its ability to
|> handle higher video modes such as 1920 x 1200 (when it can handle 1600 x 1200)?
|> I'm curious why there are so many DVI switches that have a 1600 x 1200 limit
|> and can't do 1920 x 1200.
|
| What refresh rate? Perhaps it needs Dual Link DVI (DVI-DL) to get
| the refresh rate you're looking for at 1920x1200.
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.
--
|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) |
In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
| In article <g3h0sn05u7@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| says...
|> What aspects of a DVI switch (KVM for example) would affect its ability to
|> handle higher video modes such as 1920 x 1200 (when it can handle 1600 x 1200)?
|> I'm curious why there are so many DVI switches that have a 1600 x 1200 limit
|> and can't do 1920 x 1200.
|
| What refresh rate? Perhaps it needs Dual Link DVI (DVI-DL) to get
| the refresh rate you're looking for at 1920x1200.
I suspect what the switch might be trying to do is mess with the EDID data.
And its firmware isn't coded for more than 1600x1200. I just don't know if
this was because the engineer coding it didn't know of 1920x1200 (unlikely)
or if management interfered (more likely). Maybe it could be a documentation
issue and it really would work with 1920x1200.
--
|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) |
<phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
news:g3hqjb0rv8@news4.newsguy.com...
\
>
> 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.
In alt.engineering.electrical Bob Myers <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
|
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:g3hqjb0rv8@news4.newsguy.com...
| \
|>
|> 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.
I called one of the makers of one of the switches I found like this (Blackbox)
and the guy I talked to tried to convince me that no one uses 1920x1200. My
response was "but they do use 1600x1200 when monitors of that type are rare
adn hard to find and are about to go out of production because the world is
shifting to widescreen so they have enough space to display 1920x1080 video?".
He didn't have an answer to that loaded question. I suggested he have the
product sent back to engineering.
--
|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) |
In alt.engineering.electrical Bob Myers <nospamplease@address.invalid> wrote:
| <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
| news:g3hqjb0rv8@news4.newsguy.com...
| \
|>
|> 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".
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) |
In alt.engineering.electrical krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
| In article <g3h0sn05u7@news4.newsguy.com>, phil-news-nospam@ipal.net
| says...
|> What aspects of a DVI switch (KVM for example) would affect its ability to
|> handle higher video modes such as 1920 x 1200 (when it can handle 1600 x 1200)?
|> I'm curious why there are so many DVI switches that have a 1600 x 1200 limit
|> and can't do 1920 x 1200.
|
| What refresh rate? Perhaps it needs Dual Link DVI (DVI-DL) to get
| the refresh rate you're looking for at 1920x1200.
It has a max resolution of 1920x1440. But it also says it is not intended for
widescreen displays.
--
|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) |
Ο <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:g3j9mo01j0n@news1.newsguy.com...
> In alt.engineering.electrical Bob Myers <nospamplease@address.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
> | news:g3hqjb0rv8@news4.newsguy.com...
> | \
> |>
> |> 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/S...VM-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
In alt.engineering.electrical Tzortzakakis Dimitrios <noone@nospam.void> wrote:
|
| ? <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> ?????? ??? ??????
| news:g3j9mo01j0n@news1.newsguy.com...
|> In alt.engineering.electrical Bob Myers <nospamplease@address.invalid>
|> wrote:
|>
|> | <phil-news-nospam@ipal.net> wrote in message
|> | news:g3hqjb0rv8@news4.newsguy.com...
|> | \
|> |>
|> |> 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/S...VM-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.
What I'm trying to do is switch from among 4 computers, 2 with HD15 analog
video out, and 2 with DVI-D out. I want to run the DVI ones at 1920x1200.
The analog ones would be at some lower 16:10 resolution, and be scaled up.
The quality is not critical for the analog ones, but they need to at least
maintain functionality without major distortion. Output from the KVM switch
would go to a DVI-I to DVI-D + HD15 splitter, and both of those go into the
same monitor. That way when the switch selects a DVI machine, digital video
goes to the monitor, otherwise the monitor just gets analog.
It needs to also have PS/2 keyboard/mouse without any use of USB conversion.
--
|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) |
DVI switch 
Linear Mode
