Chris,

My interest in the wide LCDs actually began with looking into running a 
desktop with dual monitors.  The wide screen was meant as an alternative 
to dual CRT heads.  The desktops are data acquisition monitoring and
analysis stations so the goal was extra screen real estate.

Dual monitors seemed the way to go but I did not get a definitive recipe 
for this.  Some suggested 2 video cards; some, a video card with 2 ports. 
The video card with 2 ports was conceptually straightforward but 
expensive.  I'm confused by 2 video cards---not sure how the video space 
is consolidated.

Hence, a wide screen.  It's not as much screen real estate as 2 CRTs but the
consensus around the lunch table is that the stations would look 21st
century and, more importantly, "sexy". ;)

Now, I see you've done both.  Can you tell me something more about your
setup?  I dont see any indication on the web that an X600 has 2 ports.
Words of advice?  How you would do things differently?

Ken




On Tue, 1 Aug 2006, Chris Payne wrote:

> Ken--
>
> We have one Dell Optiplex here running SL42 with 2 of the Dell 2005FP Wide
> Screen monitors as a single desktop. These are driven by an ATI Radeon X600
> card, and both are running native at 1680x1050.
>
> X was initially slightly unstable using the ATI provided driver (go figure),
> sometimes locking up when the user was idle overnight. This has since cleared
> up after switching to the contrib driver, ie:
>
> ati-fglrx-8.18.6.1-0.SL.1
> kernel-module-fglrx-2.6.9-34.0.1.EL-8.18.6.1-0.SL.1
>
> Brightness seems pretty good to me, I still run 19" CRT's on my desks which I
> am comparing to. I do find the aspect ratio slightly annoying since so many
> of our applications/screens are designed around 4x3 monitors. I personally
> prefer 3 or 4 19" LCD's which have approximately the same desktop space
> (3 have slightly more at 1280x1024) but seem more natural in our environment.
> I think this option is also slightly cheaper per unit area of desktop
> depending on the video cards you choose (we use a PNY card based on the
> nVidia Quadro4 400 NVS series).
>
> Good luck.
> Chris
> --
> Chris Payne			ISAC Operations Controls System Manager
> "Relax Snap, this is particle physics, not rocket science."
>
> On Fri, Jul 28, 2006 at 07:32:29PM -0400, Christopher Juckins wrote:
>> Date: Fri, 28 Jul 2006 19:32:29 -0400
>> From: Christopher Juckins <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Re: SL4x wide LCD support
>> In-reply-to: <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: Ken Teh <[log in to unmask]>
>> Cc: [log in to unmask]
>> Precedence: list
>> User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.5 (Windows/20060719)
>>
>> Although I have not actually used a 1920x1200 screen resolution on
>> SL4.x, that resolution is a standard option that can be chosen with
>> system-config-display.
>>
>> I find LCD panels to be far superior than clunky CRTs.  They are bright,
>> crisp, and in their native resolution, much easier on the eyes than
>> CRTs...which to me always seemed to have blurry edges and other optical
>> distortions.  (Maybe the government just buys cheap monitors!)
>>
>> I have a new Dell 2005FPW (under WinXP) and it's great...an excellent
>> display for general all-purpose use.  I also have an HP LP2065 (standard
>> 1600x1200 20" monitor) and it's also another very good flat panel.
>>
>> -Christopher Juckins
>>
>>
>> Ken Teh wrote:
>>> Questions on wide-screen LCDs:
>>>
>>> (1) How well are wide-screen LCDs supported under SL4x?  Like 1920x1200
>>> screen
>>>     resolutions?
>>>
>>> (2) Any recommendations?  Specific manufacturers and models?
>>>
>>> (3) Any recommendations on width versus resolution?  While LCDs are bright
>>>     and easy on the eyes, I hold, possibly mistaken, the notion that
>>> LCDs do
>>>     not have comparable pixel resolution to CRTs.
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>
>