[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: X 4.2 problems ("out of range") with Matrox G450



On 16 Nov 2002 04:44:10 -0500, Mark L. Kahnt <kahnt@hosehead.dyndns.org> wrote:
 
> Out of range errors - particularly when the monitor is reporting them
> too, have to do with monitor scanline settings that the monitor can't
> support - being too wide or too tall or too fast for a resolution. The
> graphics card might handle it fine, but the monitor can't process the
> signal. "Out of range" is the new way a monitor reports this problem -
> the old way was distorted images and sometimes smoke pouring out of the
> back, all too often with a voided warranty on the monitor.
> 
> It sounds like a monitor scanline setting that had pushed tolerances but
> worked in previous editions of X11 is now over what your monitor can
> support. Try switching your default resolution down to something more
> reliable, and using xvidtune to bring the 1280x1024 settings into range
> for your preferences and monitor. It *might* be considered an X11 bug in
> that there wasn't a warning that improved performance by X11 4.2 might
> make some *pushed to the limit* mode scanline settings go over the
> limit, but that isn't necessarily the primary fear when rolling out
> something like a new edition of X11 - major structural breakage of
> software and hardware more likely is.

Except that I put in the horizontal (30-107) and vertical syncs
(48-120) as given in my monitor handbook, and also according to the
handbook the monitor (the 19in Sony CPD G400) should be able to handle
setting higher than 1280x1024, so I don't see why I am pushing the
limit on this. The file generated by xserver-xfree86 looks quite
innocuous too. When used with 4.1 it gives a horizontal sync of 91 and
a vertical sync of 85 at 1280x1024, which is not exactly pushing the
envelope.

Oh well, I guess I'm going to be staying with 4.1 for the time being.

Thanks.                                            Faheem.

                                                     




Reply to: