IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

For friendly off topic discussion not covered in a forum above.
Forum rules
No politics, please.
User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10535
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby hamei » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:29 am

Shiunbird wrote:Hamei, there's more...

I know. There's also color correction and 10-bit color and other stuff that's not well documented. But I didn't know it would sync up to 85 hz. Never tried. Cool :)

So it doesn't need the external converter box.

That's kind of nifty, since the converter boxes are hard to come by. Luckily, with an SGI you don't need / can't use them.

When I told the Canadian seller about the destroyed DG5, he told me that he wants to buy from me its power supply because he has an extra DG5 (I think it's a DG5) working, but he doesn't have the power supply to go with it.

There's one on taobao. Unusual for odd computer things on taobao, it's not ridiculously priced. I think it was like $20 or so.

But the power supply is nothing. It's big but standard. If it were not under the desk jammed up next to the wall behind my lifetime collection of cables I'd go get the wattage values for you now.

If the destroyed display works, I'd keep the power supply and try to restore it.

It may. Those things are built stong to last long. You might find a blown-up one to salvage the case some day.

1. Maybe Hamei can contact the Canadian seller and get the functional display without power supply, if he is interested. It can be a source for spares.

Thank you but I need less stuff, not more :)

I don't see anything special in the cables I have, it should be doable. Maybe one of the folks here with experience could help us?

The cables are not special, similar but shorter ones are available from matrox and some other places, they have standard dvi connectors on one end and a standard 60-pin (I think) connector on the other. They are also used for something else that's pretty common. I forget what but not hard to find.

I just wanted them to match. Silly but you know how it goes :D

I won't need the 2nd T221 until December, so I will be happy to lend Hamei the cable so he finishes his project ...

December, yeah right :D I have projects dating back to before the founding of nekochan. We work in geological time here.

It's cool, d00d, if you end up with an IBM cable that matches this one and don't need it, I can go for that. But otherwise no problem, the 4-way project dates back to when wreck was active so it'll wait until he gets bored with whatever and comes back again. I'm gonna need some adwice with quadragraphic viewing anyhow. But take it apart and take photos ! Replacing the backlight is a definite have-to. Some day :D
hey friendly ! come outta there ! you're a cheap lousy dirty stinkin' mug and I'm glad what I done !

User avatar
guardian452
Donor
Donor
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: United States

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby guardian452 » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:38 am

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. :lol:

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).
Last edited by guardian452 on Sat Apr 14, 2018 4:21 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
shutitalldown
Posts: 177
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2018 3:28 am

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby shutitalldown » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:48 am

3840x2400 :roll: ?
I am tattooed in reverse, cause if you break rules you don't know where it leads.
But, say, all the venus in furs are so manically depressed and manically dressed.

User avatar
hamei
Posts: 10535
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 4:10 pm
Location: over the rainbow

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby hamei » Sat Apr 14, 2018 7:16 pm

guardian452 wrote:Well, you've just invalidated all of your earlier arguments.

I haven't invalidated anything, I've just proven that you can't read.

At 200 dpi you are getting the same resolution as a laserjet printer. This is real-world physical media where it counts, something you can touch and hold and give to customers. The crap about "cheap inkjets" doing that is nonsense, nothing but marketing spew. Go buy a cheap inkjet and see what you really get. They never work the way Ziff-Davis claims. Never.

200 dpi is much better for viewing graphics than lower resolutions. But if you go past that

1) you get beyond what the eyes can discriminate

2) the damn mouse becomes a hassle. In practice, 3800 is about as many pixels as you can mouse across conveniently. Too many more and you have to pick and put the mousey just to get across. Or jack up the speed and you lose accuracy. The acceleration gimmick is just that, a gimmick. In real life it's not worth shit. Maybe people with gorilla arms and yard-deep desks would not have this problem. But if you have a fairly normal workspace, you will run into this.

This makes about a 24" screen at around 3800 x 2400 ideal. It's about the limit of what the eyes can actually use (are you upset that your speakers don't reproduce sounds above 40,000 khz ? Should your teevee show images in the infrared range ?) and it's about the limit for what a mouse or trackball can conveniently control. And IBM produced these in 1995 which is twenty years before Apple got on the "Retina ! aren't we cool !" bandwagon.

You could vary from this somewhat to account for tastes - I could see wanting a little larger screen at a little lower resolution to get more space, perhaps - but in general, from using hi-res at a desktop for all kinds of work over several years, this is my conclusion.

Sorry. T221 still rules. Meanwhile Apple is welcome to take their groovy displayport garbage and plug it into their displayport socket. I am sick to death of all this crap companies do just to mess with people. Fuck Apple and the horse they rode in on. (The Geeks just told the Assistant she needed to buy a new iPad because the power socket got a kink in it. Hers is "too old !" I fixed the thing in less than fifteen seconds. Literally.)

p.s. Apple can take their idiotic worthless heic crap and jam that where the sun don't shine, either. Where the flock do these nitwits get these annoying "features" ? It just works my ass. Someone should dirtybomb their building, they are even worse than mickeysoft.
hey friendly ! come outta there ! you're a cheap lousy dirty stinkin' mug and I'm glad what I done !

User avatar
Trippynet
Donor
Donor
Posts: 900
Joined: Thu Aug 15, 2013 6:22 am
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland, UK

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby Trippynet » Sun Apr 15, 2018 2:24 am

guardian452 wrote:
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.


Actually, they can't. Please show me all these other 3840x2400 screens out there. I think you'll find almost all are 3840x2160 seeing as the monitor manufacturers all prefer to make cheapo TV screens these days. Which is great if you use your computer just for watching TV, less great if you actually like to do proper work with it.
Systems in use:
:Indigo2IMP: - Nitrogen: R10000 195MHz CPU, 384MB RAM, SolidIMPACT Graphics, 36GB 15k HDD & 300GB 10k HDD, 100Mb/s NIC, New/quiet fans, IRIX 6.5.22
:Fuel: - Lithium: R14000 600MHz CPU, 4GB RAM, V10 Graphics, 72GB 15k HDD & 300GB 10k HDD, 1Gb/s NIC, New/quiet fans, IRIX 6.5.30
Other system in storage: :O2: R5000 200MHz, 224MB RAM, 72GB 15k HDD, PSU fan mod, IRIX 6.5.30

User avatar
guardian452
Donor
Donor
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: United States

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby guardian452 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 7:32 am

hamei wrote:1) you get beyond what the eyes can discriminate
Ah, yes, if you are looking at cel-animated films. In which case, you're better off putting your money into the contrast and brightness side of the equation, instead of resolution. Aliasing is still an issue for line drawings, text, anything contrasty, and the pixels can be clearly visible. Hinting and anti-aliasing can go a long way to improving the situation but only if the program you are using supports it.

There is definitely a limit, for sure there is no reason do go beyond 522 dpi (those crazy phone screens exist primarily so they can be used as VR displays). 200 dpi on a normal desktop is right at the minimum for somebody with good vision for the pixels to just barely be imperceptible.

hamei wrote:2) the damn mouse becomes a hassle.
What ill-conceived system are you using where the resolution can scale up but the mouse cursor doesn't? I've literally never heard this being a problem before. Higher resolution doesn't (or shouldn't) give you more things to click on, it just makes the things that are there look... nicer. If the whole point is that the individual pixels are too small to see, then what is the necessity of being able to click on each individual pixel?

hamei wrote:This makes about a 24" screen at around 3800 x 2400 ideal. It's about the limit of what the eyes can actually use
My desktop has two 24" 3840x2160 displays. I don't want or need to go beyond that, it's sufficient for my needs. It's fucking brilliant, actually. Going back to one would be a little claustrophobic for a while.

hamei wrote:Sorry. T221 still rules. Meanwhile Apple is welcome to take their groovy displayport garbage and plug it into their displayport socket. I am sick to death of all this crap companies do just to mess with people. Fuck Apple and the horse they rode in on.

p.s. Apple can take their idiotic worthless heic crap and jam that where the sun don't shine, either. Where the flock do these nitwits get these annoying "features" ? It just works my ass. Someone should dirtybomb their building, they are even worse than mickeysoft.

You should have seen me and a friend swearing at itunes the other day. All she wanted was to change her damn iphone ringer. And the sync was silently failing. After a complete iphone reset and restore it worked. Which tends to be the issue with iphones/itunes in general: when they work they're great, but even the simplest tasks (like adding a ringtone) can become an hour-long ordeal. And more and more often, they don't work. Don't get me started on the long-standing tradition of having to export your mp3 as an m4a in quicktime, and then renaming it to a m4r, and making sure it's under 40 seconds or the sync will fail silently, and, and, and. Ugh.

But I don't see what apple has to do with displayport? There is plenty of REAL issues with apple, there's no need to make stuff up (like a broken charge plug :roll: not that that doesn't happen but it can happen to any gadget).

User avatar
spiroyster
Donor
Donor
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:24 am
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby spiroyster » Sun Apr 15, 2018 1:08 pm

guardian452 wrote:Those all sound like workarounds of the technology of the day.
Absolutely, because DP wasn't around then! How else are you going to keep something that big fed when nothing around can feed it through one cable without going bespoke. Any GPU that supports HD screen resolution and FSAA could potentially feed it (by applying FSAA, and NOT sampling), but the problem is there is no bandwidth great enough to support this in a connector at the time, no GPU manufacturer at the time is going to add a bespoke connector for a single setup because this limits your target market substantially... OpenLDI :roll: ... the fact that it accepts multiple DVI setups is big bonus and means this display still kicks ass in our day and age... I want one.... its essentially better than 4K and has 16:10 aspect... lurvely.

guardian452 wrote:What ill-conceived system are you using where the resolution can scale up but the mouse cursor doesn't? I've literally never heard this being a problem before.
This isn't right? ... I would say the converse... What ill conceived system couples mouse sensitivity with screen resolution??? When I up my screen res I don't expect my mouse to follow suit... that would make upping the screen res pointless for anything other than FSAA which is not what upping the screen resolution does?

What system does what you say? Remind me to avoid it.

guardian452 wrote:Higher resolution doesn't (or shouldn't) give you more things to click on
It absolutely should...

guardian452 wrote:it just makes the things that are there look... nicer
Nope, I think you are confusing FSAA with screen resolution. This is what AA does and can be implemented many different ways, increasing the screen resolution for FSAA is something which should be transparent to the user... i.e when applying FSAA you don't say... "I want 4K instead of HD", you say "I want HD with 2xFSAA" (GPU will render to 4K resolution, and sampled back to HD to produce AA, they are two completely separate things, increasing the resolution doesn't give you AA out of the box... (because the key step 'sampling' should be absent when picking a screen resolution)... sampling a separate stage which is not coupled to end display resolution, nor should it be... never has and never will.

guardian452 wrote: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.
By this logic, you are saying you use Solidworks at some low 16:9 resolution (maybe 720p?) with nice smooth AA lines... not actual 4K?

The size of the screen plays an important role here... 4K on a 19" diagonal will look a lot more crisp than 4K on a 30" diagonal, no point having high res (your eyes will loose the precision) if the screen size is small, and likewise... when you have a large screen realestate... by default you will tend toward larger display resolutions.... 1280x720 on a 30" is... erm... pixelated.... 720p with AA is still pixelated... just without jaggies.
CLICK HERE to find out what click bait is. You will not believe what you discover.
#NaN singles in your area are already making gazzilions by using this trick.

Cambridge Analytica approved!!

User avatar
guardian452
Donor
Donor
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:12 pm
Location: United States

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby guardian452 » Sun Apr 15, 2018 4:00 pm

spiroyster wrote:Noise.



A lot of what you say doesn't make any sense. Let's say I have a 100 dpi resolution 24" screen - 1920x1080. I decide to upgrade to a 200 dpi resolution 24" screen - 3840x2160. The number of pixels, the image quality, the whatever you want to call it... has quadrupled. The computer is showing you 4 times the information it was previously. 4 times the number of pixels. HOWEVER, assuming you don't run into any wacky odd apps (java apps still suck at this, but they can be scaled by the system without issue), if I were to take a screenshot and shrink it by 50%, to 1920x1080, the picture should appear identical (not pixel-perfect, probably) to your old 100 dpi display. Both Windows and Mac OS are sufficiently advanced enough to accomplish this in our year 2018 without barfing (Finally!) although windows requires the user log out and back in after a DPI (resolution scaling) change. And whatever gesticulations are required to your pointing device of choice should remain the same. After all, you still have a 12" mousepad (or 5" trackpad or a trackball or whatever) and a 24" display.

Now, you seem to be conflating display resolution with information density when the two don't have much of anything to do with each other. Although, you can cheat and turn down your system's DPI setting to combat the modern dilemma of "interface sprawl" but that is just a bodge on a bad idea. The Paypal example is particularly great, because there is a before-and-after. :| It is also possible, of course, to put a dizzying and inscrutable amount of information into a 640x480 display.


And who on earth appointed 16:10 aspect ratios to be king? If you miss your precious vertical real estate so much, get a 3:2 or 4:3 display, or maybe just a bigger one. If you want vertigo, turn your widescreen display sideways. Or do what I do and set your windows taskbar (or mac dock or whatever) off to the side, and/or hide it away completely. You'll get used to it in 3 minutes, tops.

User avatar
spiroyster
Donor
Donor
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu May 03, 2012 8:24 am
Location: Somerset, UK

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby spiroyster » Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:26 pm

guardian452 wrote:A lot of what you say doesn't make any sense.
What part? I can elaborate ;)

guardian452 wrote:Let's say I have a 100 dpi resolution 24" screen - 1920x1080. I decide to upgrade to a 200 dpi resolution 24" screen - 3840x2160.The number of pixels, the image quality, the whatever you want to call it... has quadrupled.
Number of pixels yes, but this doesn't always imply image quality...

guardian452 wrote:The computer is showing you 4 times the information it was previously. 4 times the number of pixels. HOWEVER, assuming you don't run into any wacky odd apps (java apps still suck at this, but they can be scaled by the system without issue), if I were to take a screenshot and shrink it by 50%, to 1920x1080, the picture should appear identical (not pixel-perfect, probably) to your old 100 dpi display.
Of course, but it will occupy half the physical space on your 200dpi screen. To get it full screen you need to change the DPI of the framebuffer image (framebuffers don't work in dpi/ppmm, they work in pixels).... if you reduce the DPI of the image (integer scaling)... its the same as scaling up, every single pixel in the 1920x1080 image becomes 4 pixels.... of the same colour.... since there is no AA being performed as it is ... as you say probably going to be pixel perfect (see my previous noise).

guardian452 wrote:Both Windows and Mac OS are sufficiently advanced enough to accomplish this in our year 2018 without barfing (Finally!) although windows requires the user log out and back in after a DPI (resolution scaling) change. And whatever gesticulations are required to your pointing device of choice should remain the same. After all, you still have a 12" mousepad (or 5" trackpad or a trackball or whatever) and a 24" display.
Yes but when you change the display resolution, you are increasing the number of visible pixels, which means you don't want the mouse to move the same distance as before with a lower resolution, because otherwise the motion for the mouse to go from one side to the other becomes an arm sweep, rather than wrist sweep o.0

guardian452 wrote:Now, you seem to be conflating display resolution with information density when the two don't have much of anything to do with each other.
I never mentioned DPI, but yes I assumed when you say 'changing the screen resolution' I presumed you were talking about pixel resolution because you can't change the DPI of a physical device? It's a permanent spatial quantity. Hamei mentioned pixels.... not DPI in relation to the mouse 'issue'.

guardian452 wrote:And who on earth appointed 16:10 aspect ratios to be king?
There was a memo, but the crucial information was in the small print located within the bottom 160 pixels of the proclamation, so 16:9 users must have missed it.

P.S It's the golden ratio, so nature dictates that it is far more pleasing than any other aspect ratio (at least for us ooo-mans)

guardian452 wrote:If you miss your precious vertical real estate so much, get a 3:2 or 4:3 display, or maybe just a bigger one. If you want vertigo, turn your widescreen display sideways.
Indeed, my previous noise mentioned 30", because that's my current setup... Dell 3008 (30" 2560x1600 <- 1.6 aspect), with a little Dell 2001FP which is 1600x1200... so when rotated by 90 deg, sorta matches the 3008 display height in pixels.

Banter over, I should say, I do agree with you on a lot of what you said... newer IPS put LCD to shame (although my 3008/LCD.. once warmed up is pretty nice with the blacks being... quite black!!!!), and 4K is about as practical as can be had... maybe 8K for larger displays... but anything bigger than that, text etc has to be scaled up which is essentially the same as reducing the DPI, which is basically counterintuitive to having a high dpi screen in the first place o.0
CLICK HERE to find out what click bait is. You will not believe what you discover.
#NaN singles in your area are already making gazzilions by using this trick.

Cambridge Analytica approved!!

Shiunbird
Donor
Donor
Posts: 497
Joined: Fri May 06, 2016 1:43 pm
Location: Czech Republic

Re: IBM T221 killed by incompetence - one more for packing stuff properly

Unread postby Shiunbird » Wed Apr 25, 2018 12:21 am

The seller returned from the ashes.
He said he had been in hospital and asked me to ship the broken display back.

I told him I'm happy to do so if he pays shipping. I guess that's fair right?
Assuming he really was in hospital... Otherwise I'd just keep it.

I haven't had time to look deeply into it, but I can't get it to run full screen on my Quad G5 with 2x DL-DVI. It syncs at 55Hz but only shows the central half of the screen.
ImageImage


Return to “Everything Else”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests