OS2 World Community Forum

OS/2, eCS & ArcaOS - Technical => Hardware => Topic started by: Andi B. on April 03, 2020, 08:25:04 pm

Title: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on April 03, 2020, 08:25:04 pm
Until a few months ago I though my two 24" 1920x1200 monitors give me the maximum display size I can use with OS/2. And this only when I can use a graphic card which SNAP can drive in multi-head mode. Then I bought a used Thinkpad T540p with a 2880x1620 panel. Surprisingly this resolution works with panorama. But of course the display is much to small. Notebooks are only toys for me. For real work I need more than 24".

Now I've the opportunity to lend a 27" Eizo with 2560x1440 resolution. As the motherboard on one of my systems does have a DisplayPort I tested this monitor with OS/2 and it works. Now as I know that Intel processor integrated graphic chip can drive more than 1920x1200 via DP I wonder if it would be possible to drive even bigger displays. The motherboard specification says max. resolution 4096 x 2160 @ 24 Hz / 3840 x 2160 @ 60 Hz. Now I wonder if something like the DELL P4317Q Ultra HD IPS 42,5" which can do 3840x2160 will work with this board. Anyone tested such high resolutions with any motherboard?
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Neil Waldhauer on April 04, 2020, 04:57:38 pm
I haven't tested, but this is an Intel system like you describe. Based on the hardware documentation, we ought to be able to see resolutions up to 4096 x 2304. Panorama works well on this system.

http://www.blondeguy.com/computer/humbopeep.html (http://www.blondeguy.com/computer/humbopeep.html)

It's a Lenovo ThinkCentre M720s with a PCIe card for USB support and USB Audio device for audio support. I'm interested in testing this out. I like monitors that have good quality while still be a good value. I've been using the same Dell 24 inch for years. If I want to move to higher resolutions, what monitors should I try?
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Dariusz Piatkowski on April 04, 2020, 05:26:35 pm
Hi Andi,

I'm thinking that in a SNAP driver configuration this would be entirely driven by what resolution the video chipset supports, provided of course that the monitor can do that resoluiton. Therefore, in your case I would think that should work.

Now, I am still getting my kicks out of finally having a working 1920x1200 dual-head setup here. The 6-bit panel on the Dell U2412M (LG panel actually) plain sucks over VGA connector (the 2nd display is VGA connector only with SNAP on my ATI X850 XT video card) in terms of colour reproduction. There are certain shades of various colours that simply will NOT show over the VGA connector while they show just fine through DVI. I tried multiple U2412M displays, they all suck in the same way. I am attributing this to the mix of VGA signal processing and the way the 6-bit panel uses FRC (Frame Rate Control) to fake the equivalent of 8-bit panel capability in order to give you the 16.7 million colours. Anyways, I digress, different topic altogether.

So look, I've got a Samsung S32D850T here that's hooked up to the kid's PC. That's a WQHD display which does 2560x1440 resolution, but I've never tried it on my OS/2 box.

For what its worth, if you decide to run SNAP I can certainly re-wire my setup to plug in the big 32" Samsung and see if the max of my ATI X850 XT is supported, that would be QXGA which is 2048x1536. Since the video card won't support higher resolution I won't be able to drive the bit panel with it's native resolution.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on April 04, 2020, 06:01:00 pm
I don't think SNAP supports more than 1920x1200 for 16x10 aspect ration and 2048x1536 for 4:3. Maybe in VESA mode but pretty sure not with dedicated drivers. For now I think we've to stick with Panorama.

I've no clue which monitor would be a good choice. But for me it has to be one in the range of 95 - 110 DPI (24" 1920x1200 = 94 DPI, 27" 2560x1440 = 109 DPI). Standard fonts are big enough and readable in this DPI range for me. So the biggest display which may work for me is 42.5/43" with 3840x2160 (104 DPI). A quick search for a cheap one gave me the DELL I mentioned. I usually do not buy DELL. If I would know for sure this resolution works, I would look for Eizo, Samsung or HP and maybe Lenovo models. Usually the Eizos are to expensive for me. Number and type of interfaces are important for me too. 2 DP, 1 DVI and VGA would be nice too. The mentioned DELL does have even VGA. I don't care about HDMI or speakers or USB hubs build in or other gimmicks. But these are my preferences. I really want to know if 3840x2160 works for someone with Panorama before I buy such thing. Of course you need DisplayPort connection for that.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Eugene Gorbunoff on April 04, 2020, 10:19:10 pm
We have tested in 2018:
http://os2.guru/commentnews.php?id=2531
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Dariusz Piatkowski on April 05, 2020, 02:19:57 am
Hi Eugene,

We have tested in 2018:
http://os2.guru/commentnews.php?id=2531

Nice, that's pretty awesome to know and it pretty much answers Andi's question. But you are right, yikes, talk about tiny itsy bits fonts eh?
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on April 05, 2020, 11:48:06 am
Okay seems the probability that it works for me is high. Now found the following types -
- Acer EB490QK, 48.5", 705€, 91 DPI, DP, VGA, 3xHDMI
- iiyama X4372UHSU-B1, 42.5", 524€, 103,7 DPI, 2xDPv1.2, 2xHDMI, matte/anti-glare
- HP Z43, 42.5", 767€, 103,7 DPI, DP, mDP, HDMI, anti-glare

Advantage of the Acer is it's size. With 91 DPI our usual fonts should be very good readable even a bit bigger than on the 24" 1920x1200 with 94 DPI. And VGA. But not sure if it's really anti-glare/matte.

iiyamas plus is the price.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Dariusz Piatkowski on April 05, 2020, 10:46:05 pm
Andi,

The 32" Samsung 850 I have here sure feels pretty "huge" when placed in a corner unit of a desk (L-shaped office desk setup). Honestly, I can't even imagine going to anything bigger...

If you are going to go even bigger make sure you have the room for it.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on April 15, 2020, 10:28:12 am
Now I had a chance to test a ~32" 3840x2160 monitor. Unfortunately it did not work for me. No clue if it's cause of my old Panorama. I think I use something like 1.07. Every OS/2 installation I tried came up with standard VGA 640x480 resolution without any chance to change it to another setting. Tried PanUtil without success. Guess Panorama couldn't read or interpret EDID information correctly.

Of course the same setup worked with Win in 3840x2160.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on April 16, 2020, 07:37:42 pm
Hi Andi B.

I don't remember if you are using ArcaOS, but the latest version of the driver on AN is "panorama-1.15.exe". If you can update it , it will be good at least to know that you are at the latest level.

Can you please tell us to the motherboard model, GPU and Monitor you are using to try to get "3840x2160" ?

Regards
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on April 17, 2020, 01:35:31 pm
All my ArcaOS subscriptions has expired since a while so I'm not on current level. I have Panorama 1.06 or 07 or something like that which worked well for systems which are not supported by SNAP until now. I've bought more than one ArcaOS license in case someone wonders.

I'm testing on my Asus H87-Pro which offers 3 digital monitor interfaces. These 3 digital interfaces where one of the main reasons I bought this board a few years ago. At that time I planned to use 2 or 3 1920x1200 monitors digitally connected to this board. Unfortunately SNAP still does not support the Haswell integrated Intel HD4600 graphic. So I've to use Panorama with this system.

Now other possibilities than MultiMonitor setups are came to mind. With a big monitor and 3840x2160 resolution (max. on this board with 60Hz) I could replace 2 of the 24" 1920x1200 monitors. Of course this only works with DisplayPort.

As the 27" Eizo runs fine with 2560x1440 resolution I was confident 3840x2160 would work to. But then I tested my sons Samsung with 3840x2160 and that did not work. I don't know if it's a problem with Panorama or maybe this is another Samsung model with crippled/wrong EDID information like one of Dariusz Samsung. Should have checked that while testing...
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on October 13, 2020, 09:58:01 pm
After I bought the iiyama X4372UHSU-B1, 42.5" I tried a lot to get OS/2 to work with 4k resolution. Two tickets at AracNoae and a lot of support from David but it does not work with my integrated BIOS and HD4600 graphic. And it does not work with 2 PCIe ATI cards I tried which I had laying around. They all of course can drive this monitor with native resolution under other OSes but not with our Panorama.

Today I got a my new Sapphire Pulse Radeon 550 2G card. The cheapest I found with standard DisplayConnector. And now it works :-) I've OS/2 - ArcaOS running with 3840x2160 resolution at 60Hz refresh rate at this 42.5" monitor.

As David summed up on the Arca Noae wiki it needs a not to old graphic card BIOS to get such configuration to work. And some luck. And of course Display Port connection. Maybe some very new HDMI connector with proper cable will do it too. Older HDMI can't handle the bandwidth. Anyway for computer monitors DP is much preferred.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andreas Schnellbacher on October 13, 2020, 10:22:58 pm
With a big monitor and 3840x2160 resolution (max. on this board with 60Hz) I could replace 2 of the 24" 1920x1200 monitors. Of course this only works with DisplayPort.
BTW: The newer HDMI standard supports this as well. Since a few months most mainboards have HDMI connectors only. It was the opposite a few years ago.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Martin Iturbide on October 14, 2020, 01:01:46 am
Hi Andi B.

That's awesome, I want to include a post about it on the OS2World wiki.

According to what I read you are using:
- iiyama PROLITE X4372UHSU-B1 42.5" (https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4372uhsu-b1/)
- Sapphire Pulse Radeon 550 2G card (https://www.sapphiretech.com/en/consumer/pulse-rx-550-2g-g5) (Is the link the right one)
- ArcaOS 5.0.6 with lastest Panorama, right?
- It works with the DisplayPort plug.

What about the HDMI and DVI ports of the card (according to the picture I can see on the video card site), are those useless?

It this right? Let me know anything you may want to add about the configuration on ArcaOS.

Regards
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on October 14, 2020, 12:14:06 pm
Quote
According to what I read you are using:
- iiyama PROLITE X4372UHSU-B1 42.5"
- Sapphire Pulse Radeon 550 2G card (Is the link the right one)
- ArcaOS 5.0.6 with lastest Panorama, right?
- It works with the DisplayPort plug.
Yes, correct. Additionally it runs on another partition with updated eCS. But probably very recent Panorama too. Maybe older Panorama works but I don't know. I bought my card here https://www.e-tec.at/details.php?artnr=%20301295 for 69 €.

Quote
What about the HDMI and DVI ports of the card (according to the picture I can see on the video card site), are those useless?
DVI can't handle the bandwidth per definition. So there's no sense to try it out with resolutions over 1920x1200 (x1450). I haven't tried if the graphic card BIOS handles dual-link DVI which may allow up to 2560x1440. But definitely not 4k. So I see no point in even trying that with this monitor. Remember we do not have multi-monitor mode with Panorama. And we will never get multi-monitor mode using different screen resolutions even when SNAP would support this chip. To my thinking one monitor with 3840x2160 is even better then two monitors each 1920x1200 which I have on my other system. See picture.

HDMI - I tested a few other cards with HDMI but without success. Remember you need very recent HDMI version (2.x?) to support 4k. It often works with Win with 30Hz refresh rate but not with OS/2. Seems the graphic card BIOSes do not support these special case (30Hz) very well so Panorama can't use it. This new card may work with HDMI as it has HDMI 2.0. But HDMI is the consumer toy interface. Remember HDMI officially does not even define 1920x1200. Although in theory it could handle it since the beginning it is practically available only since about 2010 - more than 10 years after DVI supported such resolutions. HDMI is for television sets and blue-ray players which needs copy protection. There's no good reason to use it for computer monitors.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Dariusz Piatkowski on October 14, 2020, 02:38:46 pm
Andi,

Good sir, that is excellent outcome!

So...when can we going to see some SysBench video benchmarks???

As much as I had always appreciated the SNAP ATI video card support, and the fact that this is the ONLY way to run a dual-head setup, I am starting to re-consider as it appears more and more viable to be able to pull off these high-resolution configurations.

I do have the physical desk real estate to actually put such a behemoth of a display up, which means, maybe I should? LOL
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: ivan on October 14, 2020, 02:50:52 pm
Hi Dariusz,

I'm beginning to wonder as well.  Also wondering if it would work with the built in graphics of the AND Ryzen processors.

If it would and if our version of VNC would work with a Linux VNC Server and not just give a grey window I might end up with the best of both worlds - OS/2 for work and Linux for browser on the same screen.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Rich Walsh on October 16, 2020, 06:54:34 am
I do have the physical desk real estate to actually put such a behemoth of a display up, which means, maybe I should?

Don't - it promises to be an ergonomic nightmare. Displays like this are meant to be used as true "monitors": screens that you refer to but don't actually work with. Here's why:

Normally, a display is positioned so you are looking at a point about a third down the screen. This allows you to see the top 2/3rds with eye movement and the bottom 1/3rd by bending your neck down slightly. Now, look at where the top of the Ilyama is in relationship to the top of the conventional monitors. Your direct line of sight is about half-way down. Given its size, eye movement only covers perhaps 1/2 the screen. This means you have to lean your head back to work with the top 1/4. Try having your neck bent backward for more than a minute or two - you will *not* be happy.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Andi B. on October 16, 2020, 01:00:59 pm
Quote
Don't - it promises to be an ergonomic nightmare.
Don't think all people are equal and don't forget others may work in a different way than you expect or can imagine.

It's correct that you don't put the focus of your work on the top or bottom boarder when you sit close to such monitor. But as said, one such thing is better than having two 24" displays side by side (same H resolution and nearly same H size). I know there are people who work on small notebook displays. But there are also people like me who need 3 or 4 conventional displays to do their work. Some people constantly switching windows or scroll around. I prefer rolling with my chair now and then. I also have no problem to move my head up and down or from one side to the other. Which is by the way much more healthy (and ergonomic) than staring on a small display for a long time.

People like me who do a lot of things in parallel need a lot of display (or desk) space. I know some others work differently which is not wrong too. But especially people who do programing will quite fast enjoy when they do not only see 50 lines of code at once but 90. Of course the focus of you work is not at the very top or very bottom of the screen. But it's cool to see this portions sometimes without scrolling. The same is true when you make layouts for electronics. Everyone who have done such work knows you have to zoom very often. Of course even with a bigger monitor most of the time you work near the center line of the screen. But it's enormous helpful to see where all these traces run to the other components and have the big picture of the whole circuit board while working on the detail a the center.

Another thing I enjoy is placing some things running in the background to the edges. F.i. the firewall or memory logs or the email client don't need my attention very often. But if something happens there, it's on my workspace. I recognize it even when I'm focused on another part of the display. Our eyes and brain recognizes very much outside the small focus point. Btw. something the consumer industry and the experts in that field learned long ago. Most people enjoy big TVs or a big cinema screen more than small one even if we know for sure that our eyes can't focus on all edges at the same time.

Again, people work different and so are their needs. In fact before I bought this display I spend a lot of time thinking about the pro and cons. In the end the decision was easy. Buying two 24" instead one 42.5"? Costs are nearly the same, H resolution and size too. But the additional size in vertical direction makes a big difference. And there is no gap at 1920 H pixel anymore. Personally I would buy the 42.5" again if I could get it at the same price. But it is true, the most top and the most bottom of the display I use only for not very important things which don't need regular attention. To use the full vertical size you would need more distance than usual. But that's not how I like to work.
Title: Re: Someone tried OS/2 with 3840x2160 Display?
Post by: Doug Clark on October 16, 2020, 07:17:46 pm
Dariusz,

Could you please hook up the Samsung S32D850T and see what resolutions the ATI X850 XT will drive though SNAP?

I am currently running two 1920x1080 monitors as a dual-head setup and am looking for more vertical resolution - say 1920x1440.
So if SNAP and the ATI x850 XT would drive the samsung at 1920x1440 that would be perfect for me.