Linux - GeneralThis Linux forum is for general Linux questions and discussion.
If it is Linux Related and doesn't seem to fit in any other forum then this is the place.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
I just warrantied my monitor and am wondering if using the full frequency range in x could've attributed to the problem.
In the monitor menu the recommended timing is 1280x1024@75.
The frequency range is H 30-85, V 50-160.
I've always used the full range when i setup x
How does one interpret the recommended timing? For example, should I limit the H range to 30-75? Or does the 75 apply to the V range? So for the second example, 50-75?
I noticed that the monitor began to show the problems after running nix fulltime.
Could be a flook, but I would rather not cause harm if I am doing something wrong.
What do you mean by RECOMMENDED timing? Aka the highest it can go? Because those are bogus, I think they make them up. Because I have had monitros which claim to be able to take like 1600x1200 @ 72 Hz or something like that, and yet it burned out after 1 year at 1024x768 @ 72 Hz. Depending on the size and make, I really doubt they RECOMMEND for it to be at that high of a setting, I think that is the max. resolution you can have.
That is the spec page for my monitor. I dont believe Samsung to be cheap.
The issue that I had was the sharpness and focus became VERY bad. To the point that small text was unreadable.
There was also a ripple that covered the entire screen. It started at the corners and progressed in. The effect was like you would find if you drop something into water.
In the specs you can see that the recommended timing is 1280x1024@75. The max is 1600x1200@68.
So in the end I should be able to enter in the full frequency range without worry?
Distribution: RH 6.2, Gen2, Knoppix,arch, bodhi, studio, suse, mint
Posts: 3,304
Rep:
many or most monitors come with a "recommended resolution". that's where they think
the picture will look best. the lower the refresh rate, the easier it is on the monitor. use it however it looks best to you within the range. my last one got a horrible whine at lower refresh rates, i think, it could have been high ones. it went out about 6 months later.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.