What a piece of junk.  Get the Nec Multisync 4FG 17 inch natural flat + super bright
for 475$ CDN.
____________
Brian Guralnick
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------
Comedy clips:
ftp://ftp.point-lab.com/quartus/Public/MP3/Simpsons-FatFingers.mp3  -53K
ftp://ftp.point-lab.com/quartus/Public/MP3/Simpsons-Moe-LieDetector.mp3  -166K
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------


----- Original Message -----
From: "Tony Karavidas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Protel EDA Forum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 7:48 PM
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Nvidia graphics card users


| Oh, and I forgot to say Costco has the Sylvania 17" LCD monitors for $500
| now. I have them on my Mac and Win2000 machine.
|
| Go buy a pair..tell you boss..do what you can.
|
| Tony
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: Andrew Jenkins [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
| > Sent: Friday, February 15, 2002 4:24 PM
| > To: Protel EDA Forum
| > Subject: Re: [PEDA] Nvidia graphics card users
| >
| >
| > On 07:05 PM 2/15/2002 -0500, Andrew Jenkins wrote:
| > >On 11:58 AM 2/15/2002 -0800, Tony Karavidas wrote:
| > >
| > > >Matt Pobursky wrote:
| > > >>I'm wondering if Nvidia has cracked the Win2K dual monitor/dual
| > > >>resolution thing or if it just works with Win9x/WinXP (like
| > > >>everyone else but Matrox). I've got a Geforce2 GTS card with dual
| > > >>head outputs I'd love to use with Win2K and dual monitors.
| > > >As I understand it, it's only the Geforce 4 cards, and the MX
| > based cards.
| > > >I'm not sure if the Geforce2 GTS is included. I may be wrong.
| > However, the
| > > >card I have is roughly $60 now. Dirt cheap.
| > >
| > >
| > >Any and all Nvidia Twinview capable boards are supported, under
| > Win9x, 98, 2000, and XP. This includes the original MX (my card,
| > not an MX2 as I originally reported), MX2, MX200, MX400, and any
| > other flavor which has dual output capability and uses an NVidia
| > GEForce chipset.
| >
| > Oops, forgot to mention Win ME and NT4, both of which are also supported.
| >
| > I would like to note one thing that users should take into
| > consideration before enabling dual-resolution. For those of you
| > with older cards (such as original MX users like myself), you
| > will find that bandwidth limitations of the hardware itself will
| > limit some capabilities, once dual-resolution is enabled. I
| > believe that it's because when the heads are treated as
| > independent devices, the secondary head hasn't enough "kick" left
| > to perform as well as it does when it is simply an extension of
| > the primary driver.
| >
| > I'd be interested to hear from those of you with newer cards to
| > verify my suspicions, if you have a TV card or the like, which on
| > my system no longer (only when dual-res is enabled) will operate
| > at full 30fps on the secondary monitor (works just fine if I run
| > in with single resolution). If you have an MX400 or other, newer
| > NVidia Twinview card and have installed the 27.2 (or above)
| > driver, and you're running a TV card or similar on the system,
| > please let me know if you experience the same problem, or whether
| > it "goes away" with the faster card...As I noted in an earlier
| > post, I'm completing the specification of a new workstation for a
| > client, and with the emrgence of NView, I think that I'd prefer
| > to stick with an NVidia card, but I'm not sure whether my
| > assumption regarding secondary monitor/"device" performance is
| > valid or simply wishful thinking...
| >
| > aj
|
|
|

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
* To post a message: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* To leave this list visit:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/leave.html
*
* Contact the list manager:
* mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
*
* Forum Guidelines Rules:
* http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/forumrules.html
*
* Browse or Search previous postings:
* http://www.mail-archive.com/proteledaforum@techservinc.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Reply via email to