MorphOs and 2560x1440
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    eliot
    Posts: 571 from 2004/4/15
    Hello,

    today I got my new BenQ 2K Monitor with a resolution of 2560x1440.
    Both MorphOs machines can use a resolution of 1920x1080.

    The full resolution of 2560x1440 is correctly recognized by both machines,
    but the display is broken when I am selecting it.

    Tested in Mac Mini 9200, 64 MB VRam and Power MDD with 9600 XT,128 MB VRam.
    With linux everything works well.

    Are there any plans to support resolutions more than full hd in near future?
    regards
    eliot
  • »18.01.17 - 16:29
    Profile
  • Moderator
    Kronos
    Posts: 2334 from 2003/2/24
    Works only over Duallink DVI.

    Radeon 9650 or better.
  • »18.01.17 - 16:31
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    eliot
    Posts: 571 from 2004/4/15
    Ok, thx for the fast answer.
    regards
    eliot
  • »18.01.17 - 17:00
    Profile
  • pOS
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    pOS
    Posts: 217 from 2003/11/14
    From: Bavaria
    Does your monitor have a VGA input, too ? If so, you could try to use a DVI->VGA-Adapter.
    I use that solution to circumvent the Single Link DVI restriction (1920x1080) of my MacMini (64MB VRAM). And can use 2560x1080 without problems.
  • »19.01.17 - 08:44
    Profile Visit Website
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    eliot
    Posts: 571 from 2004/4/15
    Yes, it has. But I have to see wether the display quality changes when using VGA instead of digital connections like
    DisplayPort, HDMI or DVI.
    regards
    eliot
  • »19.01.17 - 09:04
    Profile
  • HAK
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Posts: 225 from 2003/2/24
    From: Austria, Vienna
    Hi,


    Concerning the possible resolution of DVI, it's (besides other things) limited by the maximum pixel clock frequency (165 MHz with single-link and 300 MHz with dual-link DVI) - and of course by what the monitor can display.

    I successfully have displayed a 3520x1978 screen with 24 Hz on my ProLite B2888UHSU (4k monitor) with my Mac Mini (silent upgrade) with single-link of course.

    And - since 3840x2160 with 30 Hz are a little bit jerky I played a little bit around and made screenmodes of 3840x1080 and 1920x2160 with about 44 Hz (IIRC) using dual-link which gives a much smoother experience.


    Bye HAK
  • »31.01.17 - 21:26
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    connor
    Posts: 578 from 2007/7/29
    Hak, Could you share your settings, please?
  • »01.02.17 - 11:38
    Profile
  • HAK
  • Order of the Butterfly
    Order of the Butterfly
    Posts: 225 from 2003/2/24
    From: Austria, Vienna
    Hi,

    Quote:

    connor wrote:
    Hak, Could you share your settings, please?


    Well, I don't think this would be of much use, as the settings are for this monitor and someone with a monitor that can't handle the low refresh rate (24 Hz) wouldn't get any picture at all.

    I'm afraid, that - if you have a monitor with other specs - the best practice would be to use the nearest displayable resolution from the selection list and then try(-and-error) to change the values little by little using mode edit on the ambient screen and test the values whether you still get a display. If not, you should be able to ESCape back to the ambient screen and try other values.


    Bye HAK
  • »01.02.17 - 12:37
    Profile
  • Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    Priest of the Order of the Butterfly
    connor
    Posts: 578 from 2007/7/29
    The problem is that there are so many sliders, so many boxes to enter values that setting all thesee does not make fun. And often you enter values but they are ignored immediately and then the settings jump back to thel ast value or to any other value "close" to it. With that plus trial and error it can takes days to set up a display manually.

    And why didn't you get to the full 4k resolution? Because it falls below 24 Hz and is not visible on your monitor anymore?
  • »01.02.17 - 16:45
    Profile