On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 10:17:40AM +0100, Timo Schoeler wrote:
> 
> besides that i'm still wondering why an LC display (1600 x 1200) is told 
> to be more productive than an CRT at 1600 x 1200, provided the latter 
> one is of good quality.

The LCD gives you a fully linear display right to the corners, and proper
straight lines.  Even a good quality CRT will have linearity problems.

If you also use the DVI input, you get precisely 1 screen pixel for each
graphics pixel with no illumiation of the 'wrong' phosphors due to beam
focus and/or colour mask misalignment.

Don't believe the 'auto-adjust' for analogue input.  You need to display
a full width text window with a small font (6 pixel/char width) and
enter a long line of 'm' characters, then adjust the pixel clock and phase
in a vague attempt to get every vertical line aligned with a column of
pixels.

> LCDs may be nice, but i've spent weeks now 
> finding a 20" LCD that is really good. ViewSonic for example has a 'Zero 
> Pixel Defect Guarantee', that's a big step ahead, but their displays are 
> not superior.

I believe that current displays are much less likely to have any dead
pixels than those being produced a few years ago.  Certainly I haven't
found any on this Dell panel (yet), it also has S-VHS and compostite
video inputs (which it will display PiP).

I had no problems with X using the HIS ATI 9250 AGP card I bought either.
I've not yet tried to configure a true dual head display, but have got
the same (1660x1200) output from both its ports.
The X logfile shows reams of info about the monitor....

	David

-- 
David Laight: david@l8s.co.uk