Thinkpads Forum

Does anybody have the X61 and the Dell 2407FPW with dock setup?

I'm thinking about getting the Dell 2407FPW, but am a bit skeptical about how well the X61 can drive the big 24" display only using VGA (no DVI on the dock - ARG!). I almost bought the T61 just b/c of the DVI, but really wanted the portability of the X61...

Also, wouldn't mind seeing shots of your setup (yes, i know its dorky)

Thanks!

I have the Dell monitor, and the x61s and dock are being delivered next week.

Jaduncan wrote:I have the Dell monitor, and the x61s and dock are being delivered next week.

Ah, we will have similar setups. Do you have the same concerns as me?

I did, but less so now as my desktop runs it fine over both DVI and VGA. I was waiting for that to be sure before I bit the bullet on the x61s order.

The difference between VGA at native res and DVI at native res isn't that great IMO. In fact, unless you A/B the 2 connections you wouldn't really be able to appreciate the DVI (or in other words, notice the shortcomings of VGA).

More than anything the *thought* of the connection not being digital is a bigger deal than any gains in PQ IMO. I struggled with this for a while when I was trying to get my 42" LCD & HDTV working at native resolutin over DVI...in the end I settled on VGA and I'm really not missing much.

Jackboot wrote:The difference between VGA at native res and DVI at native res isn't that great IMO.

And that's also my opinion.

And I know it's a rare thing but I agree with PW (and jackboot) on this one as well.

Tomh and I finally agree on something!

I think it may actually be the third or fourth time already. Not very high as a percentage, though!

Jackboot wrote:The difference between VGA at native res and DVI at native res isn't that great IMO. In fact, unless you A/B the 2 connections you wouldn't really be able to appreciate the DVI (or in other words, notice the shortcomings of VGA).

More than anything the *thought* of the connection not being digital is a bigger deal than any gains in PQ IMO. I struggled with this for a while when I was trying to get my 42" LCD & HDTV working at native resolutin over DVI...in the end I settled on VGA and I'm really not missing much.

Pray tell these shortcomings of VGA you perceived with the A/B switch.

I attached my T60 to my 20" Samsung LCD over VGA one day - as compared to running via a DVI connection from my desktop. The VGA was, in my experience, fuzzy and a bit blurry. Of course I only used the auto-configure settings when on VGA mode - so who knows.

I think you might have better luck with your Dell LCD though. My friend has 2 24" inchers connected via VGA and he says that if you get the pixel clock timings set right things look perfect.

Good luck!

ymarker wrote:

Jackboot wrote:The difference between VGA at native res and DVI at native res isn't that great IMO. In fact, unless you A/B the 2 connections you wouldn't really be able to appreciate the DVI (or in other words, notice the shortcomings of VGA).

More than anything the *thought* of the connection not being digital is a bigger deal than any gains in PQ IMO. I struggled with this for a while when I was trying to get my 42" LCD & HDTV working at native resolutin over DVI...in the end I settled on VGA and I'm really not missing much.

Pray tell these shortcomings of VGA you perceived with the A/B switch.

It was quite some time ago (nearly 2 years I think?) that I did a comparison personally. I used a Dell 2405 24" LCD with VGA and DVI hooked up to it simultaneously. I remember the colours being a bit better (this is subjective though) and the picture being slightly more sharp. Mind you this could have been either a) my imagination or b) the specific monitor I was using to guage my opinion.

Is there a technical reason for DVI to be superior to VGA? Or is it simply people's (incorrect?) assumption that DVI being "digital" makes it better than VGA? From the tone of your "pray tell..." request I'm assuming you believe there is no difference between the two interfaces.

You will get some subtle ghosting on a high resolution LCD driven with VGA input, which you won't get with DVI. As signal bandwidth increases (e.g. higher resolution being pushed through the cable) the artifacts will be more and more apparent.

There may also be a slightly perceptable "shimmy" of brightness on large, blank, white areas.

The most obvious way to see these ghosts is to have some white text (or white vertical lines) on a medium-to-dark gray background. You'll notice a slightly darker-than-normal 'shadow' a few pixels across from the lines on the VGA output.

In practice, it's usually a subtle thing that 99% of the time will be un-noticeable in day to day use. Quality VGA cabling will reduce the amount of ghosting, however it's also up to the D-A signal generation circuitry in the computer, and the A-D converters in the display.

Analog signal quality from ThinkPads' VGA outputs is typically very good, at least on par with quality desktop PC graphics cards. I've tried an X31, Z61m and an X60s (both with a port replicator/Ultrabase, and without) and a Dell 20" widescreen (1680x1050) monitor, and the ghosting using the above check has always only been very subtle, and about as good as it gets as far as VGA signal quality is concerned.

[contents of this post deleted by author]

qviri wrote:In the end: yes, there's a technical reason why DVI is better than analog. With good equipment, the difference may be too small to notice. Is there a way to tell if the difference will bother a particular person with a particular setup (graphics card, cable, monitor, eyesight, distance from monitor, personal preferences)? Short of trying it, not really; too many variables.

Excellent explanation ... and I really do agree.

On my X31 the VGA output is excellent -- at least for my eyes -- and I can really only see the DAC issues with moire test patterns. Now, the X61 arrived today, and I have not yet had a chance to plug it in ...

qviri wrote:In the end: yes, there's a technical reason why DVI is better than analog. With good equipment, the difference may be too small to notice. Is there a way to tell if the difference will bother a particular person with a particular setup (graphics card, cable, monitor, eyesight, distance from monitor, personal preferences)? Short of trying it, not really; too many variables.

I have a 2407WFP and a T42. With the t42, the picture is bad and has heavy ghosting. It's the same with my dell inspiron. With a 'real' desktop PC graphic card the picture is nearly as good as compared to DVI. But still, I can see the difference.

tomh009 wrote:

qviri wrote:In the end: yes, there's a technical reason why DVI is better than analog. With good equipment, the difference may be too small to notice. Is there a way to tell if the difference will bother a particular person with a particular setup (graphics card, cable, monitor, eyesight, distance from monitor, personal preferences)? Short of trying it, not really; too many variables.

Excellent explanation ... and I really do agree.

On my X31 the VGA output is excellent -- at least for my eyes -- and I can really only see the DAC issues with moire test patterns. Now, the X61 arrived today, and I have not yet had a chance to plug it in ...

Let us know how the X61 goes, I'm curious as I was ponderint getting a larger external monitor aswell.

@Jackboot - just a figure of speech although I agree somewhat antiquated and uncommon

I have been using T42's VGA out to 2007WFP. The text was quite blurry compared with T42's own SXGA+ LCD. I received the thinkpad port replicator II today. The text is now razor sharp. In DOS, the text no longer getting cut off.

ymarker wrote:

tomh009 wrote:On my X31 the VGA output is excellent -- at least for my eyes -- and I can really only see the DAC issues with moire test patterns. Now, the X61 arrived today, and I have not yet had a chance to plug it in ...

Let us know how the X61 goes, I'm curious as I was ponderint getting a larger external monitor as well.

The first impression is that the VGA output on the X61 is every bit as good as that on the X31.