hamei wrote:Not to beat up on 'newer' or nuttin but ... can you point out a newer display that
displays everything from 640x480 to 3840x2400 without a hiccup ?
Yes, they practically all can.
hamei wrote:happily works with one to four single-link dvi connections or one single plus one dual-link or two dual-links ?
The fact that it needs FOUR DVI cables to get full performance kinda indicates to me that DVI is really not suitable for this kind of performance. Even back in the day, I'm surprised this screen didn't ship with a devoted framebuffer and custom interface.
hamei wrote:will display up to 3840x2400 over one dvi connection, if your operating system/graphics is smart enough to be able to feed it that ? (Most are not)
Well, my w520 thinkpad can run two p2415q's, it's dock converts DL-DVI to DP. So that's 4k, but it's limited to 30Hz. So with a dvi-DP adapter, it can. I don't have anything else with a native DVI port, and I also don't have a monitor with one (at any resolution).
hamei wrote:syncs from 12.5 hz (yes, that's 12 point five) to 60 hz (and maybe higher, never tried) ?
refreshes the screen at 41 or 48 hz (depending on the model) no matter what refresh rate you feed it ?
I am getting a headache just thinking about it. 12.5hz? How do you ever find the cursor again. I don't play PC games so I have no need for VRR, I understand there is a menagerie of different protocols out there. 30Hz is tolerable for most of my use-case but even that is annoying just moving the cursor or scrolling text.
hamei wrote:auto-adjusts to whatever format you feed it - single, dual, tiles, stripes, different feeds and speeds - all by itself and reliably ?
Those all sound like workarounds of the technology of the day.
hamei wrote:It's a product of 1995 but I have not yet seen anything better. Possibly 24" would be a tiny bit nicer (or probably not) but any bigger on a desktop is just impractical. And the Dell named above is not even up to T221 display quality, much less the rest, it's 16:9 eeeeeuw ! Stinky !
It only took Apple twenty years to catch up to IBM, except their product is piss-poor bad in comparison.
How did Apple catch up? Their last display was at 27" 2560x1440. I had one, the speakers, laptop charger, and other peripherals built-in were the best thing about it. It had horrible anti-glare coating, so bad to the point I would have preferred it to be old-school matte. (In fact, I purchased a macframe
for it). It only worked with *some* macbook pros. When Apple discontinued the thunderbolt display, they replaced it with an LG monitor so finicky it couldn't be used in the same area as a wifi router. https://9to5mac.com/2017/02/03/lg-fixes ... naffected/
Sure, the ipad pro has a great display. It's also 10 inches. It'd better be great. The macbook pros, both 13 and 15 inches, are still at the same resolution they were 5 years ago. The macbook air is at the same resolution it was 10 years ago. Not that there is anything wrong with either of them. But it's annoying when people claim macbook displays to be best-in-class when the most popular model hasn't seen a resolution bump in a decade, and the best model in half-a-decade.
hamei wrote:(also, displays at higher resolution would absolutely suck. Mousing is really at the limit at around 200 dpi and 3840 is about as wide as you can get across in one swipe. If you jack up the traverse rate so as to get across the screen in less than twenty minutes, you lose accuracy. If you set it for good accuracy, then it takes three resets to get across the screen. If you set the acceleration up, then you'll be doing something and suddenly find your mouse thinking they dropped the green flag. There really is a limit to human eyesight and coordination. Specsmanship above those numbers is just pulling on the peepee except for perhaps very specialized tasks, like maybe analyzing photos from the SR-71. Oh wait. Dumbfuck Clinton killed those. There goes one potential use. )
Well, you've just invalidated all of your earlier arguments. Get yourself a 14" monochrome CRT then. You used to always say that the resolution of this T221 was the best thing about it and would never go back to a CRT or <gasp> the awful, terrible, contemporary LCD's of the mid-2000s. Now that us commoners can piddle off to Best Buy and buy the same thing or even better for a couple hundred bucks and plug it in with one cord to our cheap consumer-grade
laptops, you are crowing foul. You don't get to have it both ways.
I guess Mac and Linux still suck for DPI scaling? Windows and Android handle it with aplomb... I know with Mac in particular you are SOL unless the display is around either 100 or 200 DPI (either retina or non-retina). Anything higher, lower, or in-between is a big fail. I've heard of (and seen firsthand) the ugliness that happens when GUI elements don't scale properly. I've never before heard of anybody having issues with their mouse cursor not scaling.
IME, 100 dpi is around dot-matrix quality. 200 dpi is around a cheap inkjet. A 15" MBP is around here. Much better than before, of course, but once you've seen better it starts to look fuzzy. 300 dpi starts looking decent, like a laserprint output. The Razer is at this level and most reasonable PC laptops as well. Mine clocks in at 276 DPI, but I leave windows at 200 because my eyes are still fairly young. I don't have much experience beyond that although I imagine there are diminishing returns beyond 300 or 400 dpi. However, my wife's Samsung phone with an insane 522 DPI
is indistinguishable from an excellent photo print. Still, going from looking at a 500 dpi screen back to 300 doesn't bring a sense of fuzziness that going from 300 to 200 does. So we are very near the point of diminishing returns. Similary, some may argue the improvements going from 2k to 4k TV are not really worth it. I won't argue that, but I will argue that 8k will probably never become mainstream, if it does it will take several decades yet (maybe for IMAX?).
I think use-case is particularly important here. I spend hours or days at a time looking at CAD drawings, line drawings, and 3d modelling in solidworks. I also spend hours at a time looking at spreadsheets. I can see where if you are using your computer to watch movies or play games a lower resolution would actually be preferable, and contrast (HDR??), brightness, and refresh rate (either as high as possible for games, if not variable, and at least being able to lock to 24hz, so 24, 48, 96 or 120hz, etc, for movies).