1366 x 768
in [Customize Windows]
|
From: Justin on 15 Jan 2010 11:01 how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an integrated intel chipset(which is junk) ps i still have the same problem with it crashing when i go to play any game that uses directx(igxpdx32.dll) is there somthing like nvemulate but for intel so i can use opengl
From: Leonard Grey on 15 Jan 2010 11:13 You can only select a video resolution that your monitor and graphics system support. To see what resolutions are supported: Control Panel > Display > Settings. If your computer has an LCD monitor, the video resolution should be the same as the monitor's native resolution; any other setting will look fuzzy. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Justin wrote: > how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an > integrated intel chipset(which is junk) > > ps i still have the same problem with it crashing when i go to play any game > that uses directx(igxpdx32.dll) is there somthing like nvemulate but for > intel so i can use opengl
From: thanatoid on 16 Jan 2010 23:59 "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG(a)soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in news:r04rLaP58aULFwR9(a)soft255.demon.co.uk: > In message <Xns9D01A141CD724thanexit(a)188.40.43.245>, > thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> writes: <SNIP> > You _may_ have to tell your system you have an unknown > monitor as well (unless you can find a driver for the > actual monitor in question); it may otherwise assume the > monitor it thinks you're using isn't capable of some > resolutions, and not offer them. I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. >>all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate >>must be 60 Hz. > > Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. <SNIP> >> DirectX's main claim to fame is that >>every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may >>make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go >>back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. >> > I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if > it's made your machine truly inoperable!) Of course it isn't. It's a MS product. But thankfully, mostly just gamers and people who "have to have the latest version of everything MS makes" use it. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.)
From: Anteaus on 17 Jan 2010 02:48 A specific monitor .inf can allow nonstandard resolutions so long as the driver and hardware are capable of them. Sometimes a driver update will also allow more resolutions. No display has a 50Hz vertical rate. The standard values are 43,60,73,75,85 or 100Hz. LCDs typically support 60 or 75Hz only, but this is of no significance as unlike a CRT a low rate doesn't induce flicker. "thanatoid" wrote: > I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance > between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. > > Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're > in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a > year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. >
From: J. P. Gilliver (John) on 17 Jan 2010 07:33
In message <Xns9D02EA1F48767thanexit(a)188.40.43.245>, thanatoid <waiting(a)the.exit.invalid> writes: >"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG(a)soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote in >news:r04rLaP58aULFwR9(a)soft255.demon.co.uk: [] >I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance >between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. I didn't say that definitely was the case, just thought it might be. I've certainly - in the past - used monitors that wouldn't do 1024x768, for example, and others that would only do so at low refresh rates; I had assumed that (assuming there is actually a driver file for such monitors), if you told your system that's what you were using, it wouldn't let you use them, since in a (very) few cases doing so might actually damage the monitor. > >>>all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate >>>must be 60 Hz. >> >> Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. > >Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're This is an early 15" LCD (when they dropped below 300 pounds! These days, you have to hunt hard to even _find_ one that small!); IIRR, it actually recommends no _more_ than 75, but I haven't been into its box/manual for some time. (Samsung, IIRR.) >in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a >year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. Hmm. I don't think even our HD transmissions are anywhere near 200 Hz frame or field rate, or any plans to be so; even with oodles of compression, the bandwidth isn't available. I think they're 50p (as opposed to SD being 50i); I don't have any HD kit yet. As to whether the difference would be visible, then for both TV and computer use, it would only be visible on fast-moving subject matter, and there only fleetingly - in the days of tube cameras, blur used to work fine for conveying such motion, though nowadays (especially on the technically-execrable Top Gear motoring programme) there seems to be a tendency to use the shortest "shutter" speeds they can, thus making multiple images noticeble in a fast driveby. But we're getting into uk.tech.broadcast territory here ... (I've just realised I'm replying to a thanatoid post in an XP newsgroup; so your transition to the dark side has started, though as I said earlier XP is becoming lighter now with Vista and 7!) > ><SNIP> > >>> DirectX's main claim to fame is that >>>every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may >>>make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go >>>back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. >>> >> I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if >> it's made your machine truly inoperable!) > >Of course it isn't. It's a MS product. But thankfully, mostly >just gamers and people who "have to have the latest version of >everything MS makes" use it. > > Indeed. (Though sometimes you have to use the latest version of something, not necessarily DirectX, to view some YouTube videos, even if you're not a must-have-latest sort of person.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar(a)T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue. |