ubuntu / I-INC

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 08:20:35PM -0500, Mr Chris Aitken wrote:
> Aaah, I'm glad I mentioned the KVM switch (and I'm glad you picked up on 
> it). Your idea to boot with no KVM switch was a good one because it made 
> me realize that I haven't been giving linux a chance to see the new 
> display (even if only through the KVM switch). What I think I have been 
> doing is booting the XP box at the same time as the linux box. So, what 
> I think happened was I start the linux box, then KVM-switch to the XP 
> box (booting), so the XP box gets to see the new display, but the linux 
> box never gets to see the display and offers me a couple of measly 
> resolutions.
> 
> Anyway, you inspired me to KVM-switch to the linux box, restart linux 
> and patiently watch while it completely booted. It did see the display 
> through the KVM switch and offered me all kinds of resolutions. So, I 
> didn't have to boot without the KVM switch - though I did need to boot 
> to linux while KVM-switched to linux and let it finish its boot.
> 
> I don't really know which Resolution is best but I chose one that lets 
> me run a bunch of applications at a nice size and doesn't hide the panel 
> on me. I chose 1280 X 960. However, the only Refresh offered is 60 Hz 
> which is kind of lame.

For a 24" or higher display, the correct resolution is 1920x1200 on
every display I have ever seen. Anything else will be quite blurry.
There are 30" screens that run 2560x1600, but nothing smaller than that
would do that.  A few weird ones are 1920x1080 because they are really
meant for HDTV use.

1280x960 is also a 4:3 aspect ratio which will look squashed on a 16:10
display (or 16:9 for the weird HDTV ones).

-- 
Len Sorensen
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://gtalug.org/
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists