From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from lists.gentoo.org ([140.105.134.102] helo=robin.gentoo.org) by nuthatch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.50) id 1Ed3jv-00038q-3J for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:45:07 +0000 Received: from robin.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with SMTP id jAIAgt2W019035; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:42:55 GMT Received: from smtp17.wxs.nl (smtp17.wxs.nl [195.121.247.8]) by robin.gentoo.org (8.13.5/8.13.5) with ESMTP id jAIAW7B0024193 for ; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 10:32:07 GMT Received: from [10.0.0.150] (ip3e83ab52.speed.planet.nl [62.131.171.82]) by smtp17.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 Patch 2 (built Jul 14 2004)) with ESMTP id <0IQ500BP9BXJ6F@smtp17.wxs.nl> for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:32:07 +0100 (CET) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:31:40 +0100 From: Holly Bostick Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Radeon 9200/Xorg refresh rate In-reply-to: <7573e9640511171729i5965a970o8dee15f647c809c7@mail.gmail.com> To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Message-id: <437DAD8C.60508@planet.nl> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT X-Accept-Language: nl-NL, nl, en User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (X11/20051029) X-Enigmail-Version: 0.92.0.0 References: <437d17ba.71b46ae1@vuk.kjorling.com> <5bdc1c8b0511171613g433e6b1bkfc42eb405b28325a@mail.gmail.com> <437D25A7.8040603@planet.nl> <7573e9640511171729i5965a970o8dee15f647c809c7@mail.gmail.com> X-Archives-Salt: a23c364b-305f-421b-be6e-273b2d33e35f X-Archives-Hash: 8eceaf17b0476685368f408b03b1b663 Richard Fish schreef: > On 11/17/05, Holly Bostick wrote: > >> The point being, you need to know your monitor's specs. > > > Back in the day, that was true. But with modern monitors (I'm not > sure of the spec, I think is part of the VESA compliance > requirements) the video driver can query the monitor for what refresh > rates and modes supported by the monitor. "Back in the day", indeed! True, but all monitors currently in use or available for sale are not necessarily compliant with the spec, or with the current spec. Perhaps they're older models, hand-me-downs or remaindered at a store. Compliance or incomplete compliance with specs such as VESA are not particularly a deal-breaker (or even much mentioned) when buying a monitor, and there's no explicit reason that anyone might choose a "modern" monitor rather than a remaindered one (a model that is no longer actively produced by the manufacturer, but unused units of the product remain at the store's warehouse), and of course if one buys an off-the-shelf computer (Compaq, HP, Packard Bell) that comes with a monitor, you have no idea or choice what you in fact are getting in terms of "modernity"-- most likely such a no-longer-produced model is the one provided, to reduce costs. Because, really, if the monitor displays acceptably, why should Compaq or HP or PacBell particularly care to provide the very most recent model, for which they must pay more (and pass the extra cost on to the end buyer)? How many people actually ask the monitors specific specs in such a situation? And further, monitors may be actively limited in specification, the way mine is. I'm almost sure that I've tried autodetection at least once (when the head of the ATI team said that the new drivers were better served by having a relatively empty xorg.conf, and that autodetection was now working in fgrlxconfig/aticonfig). Unsurprisingly, my monitor was again limited to 1024x768@75, and I had to insert my refresh rates in order to get 1280x1024@60. But of course, since the actual monitor specs are not all that critical to "the average user", the average user who owns this model probably doesn't even know that the monitor is capable of 1280x1024 (and if they want that resolution, they buy a new monitor), and are satisfied to "eat what they're given", as it were. That's fine for those who find it fine, but I've gotta say, it really burned me, just on the principle of the thing, to discover that my monitor was had capabilities that were actively concealed from me, for my own "protection" I suppose. > This is what the "DDC" module in X is for, and why monitors no longer > require 'drivers' (which was never a 'driver' anyway, just a .inf > that told the video driver what the possible modes were). All monitors do not correctly report their DDC information, flatly put. Sometimes because of active limitation as I experience, or because they're cheaply made (just well enough to hit the mark, rather than with strict compliance to spec), or simply because they were made before the spec was implemented. After all, on anyone's standard upgrade list, how high priority is really "the monitor", as opposed to the CPU, the mobo, the memory, the video card-- even the sound card or network hardware? Who really bothers if the monitor works (meaning, "displays without corruption")? All of which means, yes, you have a point, and in many (possibly even most) situations you're probably right, but there is still a place for knowing your monitor's actual specifications, and there is still a place/reason for inserting such specs actively into xorg.conf. I stand by "know your specs". :-) . Holly -- gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list