« On Creating Strong Passwords | Home | Laugh Tracks Suck »
KVM Switches
By Jacob Cohen | August 12, 2008
Why do they have to suck? I have owned three different brands and four different styles of KVM switches in the past eight years or so, and all of them have had major shortcomings. The only reason I continue using them is that there is nothing better out there.
Why does it have to be this way? Why can’t they build a KVM switch that does what it’s built to do, and does it well?
Why, in this day and age, is it so difficult to find a KVM switch that supports resolutions higher than 1280×1024?
If I were going into business as a KVM switch manufacturer, I would start by identifying some traits that are important to the KVM customer, such as:
- Supporting any monitor resolution, especially for DVI switches, where resolution limitations are pretty much unforgivable. 800×600, 1024×768, 1280×1024, sure. But also 1440×900, 1920×1200, 2560×1600, 1280×800, 1650×1080, and everything else. Widescreen is not a fad, and the trend is always towards higher resolution displays.
- Support USB keyboards in all their glory. A $150 KVM switch should not render a $100 keyboard into a $5 keyboard because the manufacturer couldn’t be bothered to figure out how to support all of its extra features.
- Fast switching. If my monitor is running at 72Hz refresh rate, I should see my other computer 1/72 of a second after hitting that button.
These are pretty basic requirements. It may seem like this is asking a lot, but it’s not. This is the only reason this device exists.
I can’t even count the number of times I’ve hit the switch button to discover the other computer has switched into something like 640×480 resolution because it lost detection of my monitor type. This is inexcusable. I would expect a $5 switch that simply physically disconnects and reconnects the wires from one port to another internally to have this behavior. I would not expect a $150 switch full of electronics that requires its own wall power adaptor to have this behavior.
And while we’re at it, why not design a KVM switch that has a remote switch? Perhaps on a six foot cable, so that the KVM switch and its thick cabling can be placed somewhere convenient near the computers it connects to, and the switch can be on your desk where you can reach it.
In his book, The Inmates are Running the Asylum, Alan Cooper creates a metaphor of a dancing bear to represent the acceptance of hard-to-use software simply because there’s nothing better. Everyone is amazed simply because the bear is dancing, and ignores the fact that it is a terrible dancer. If this metaphor could be extended to computer hardware, I’d heartily submit the KVM switch for consideration.
Topics: General |
August 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
I work for Adder Corporation (www.adder.com) and all of our KVM switches will do what you’re asking for. High resolution support, true USB support, remote user…etc. it’s all there. I’m not sure what brands you have had in the past, but in the world of KVM switches, you definitely get what you pay for.
August 13th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
None of the Adder KVMs appear to support both DVI and USB. I could get USB/VGA, or PS2/DVI, but not USB/DVI. Additionally, 1920 x 1440 is the highest supported resolution.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
You do realise 1920×1200 is the highest resolution you can put out over a single DVI connection, right? (I assume they are pushing/breaking spec a little to support x1440)
DualDVI KVMs seem a bit much, but maybe search for those, and if they exist you might find your 2560×1600 KVMs.
September 28th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Ah, I didn’t know that. Still, capping out at 1280×1024 seems low, and it is very common even in switches costing hundreds of dollars.