Adjusting display on Dell 8100?
in [Laptops]
|
From: Barry Watzman on 15 Jan 2010 22:10 You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG. LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their one, fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical pixels. An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY resolution that should ever be used. To change the size of things (this changes EVERYTHING), use: Display properties / Settings / Advanced / General / DPI Settings Select "custom" from the drop down menu and "drag the ruler" however you want. This changes the size of everything proportionately without changing the resolution. As to how your display is behaving when you do change the resolution ... in a sense, it's behaving properly in that it's keeping each screen pixel corresponding to a physical pixel. Some display systems do this, others "scale" the image (not desirable, in any situation). How the laptop handles it is a function of the video chip and there is nothing you can do about it (it's normally not a driver issue). But regardless, it's not the right way to do it. bobmct wrote: > I am helping a colleague with his Dell Inspiron 8100 laptop. The > current resolutions is 1400 x 1050 which fills the 15" screen but the > icons and text are miniscule. > > On literally all other PC's that I have worked on one can use the > display properties to lower the resolution to "enlarge" the desktop > appearance albeit have a smaller footprint. > > When I try this on this particular machine the viewable image actually > shrinks leaving large black borders around the display area. The > lower the resolution the larger the black borders. > > I've updated the drivers retrieved from the Dell site but I am at a > loss. This is a NVidia GForce machine. > > Does anyone have any recommendations or hopefully had experience with > this issue before and provide a suggested resolution? > > Thanks in advance.
From: BillW50 on 16 Jan 2010 10:16 In news:hiramg$h70$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, Barry Watzman typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:10:01 -0500: > You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG. > > LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their one, > fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical pixels. > An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY resolution that > should ever be used... Really? The BIOS, POST, and while Windows is loading, doesn't use the screen's native resolution. So how come those that build these things don't listen to you? Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen resolution of 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there and I really dislike it. But under Windows, I can change it easily to 800x600 which is so much better. And this is the resolution I use 99% of the time. I even have from time to time used higher resolutions to view websites that are very wide. We can use different resolutions in two ways. One method actually uses the screen's native resolution, but you use only a scrolling window of the total desktop. Or if the resolution is less, it might use less of the screen. The other way is reducing the larger resolution to fit into the native resolution. Works well except for those tiny fonts and slows the computer down. lol Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with poor eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go for it. <grin> -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: the wharf rat on 16 Jan 2010 12:18 In article <hisl90$jiq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: > >Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen resolution of >800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there and I really You can easily change it under Linux, too, but you have to RTFM. >Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with >disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with poor >eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go for it. LCD panels display best at native resolution. They use interpolation to display non-native resolutions which lessens image quality.
From: BillW50 on 16 Jan 2010 12:37 In news:hissct$r25$1(a)reader1.panix.com, the wharf rat typed on Sat, 16 Jan 2010 17:18:22 +0000 (UTC): > In article <hisl90$jiq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, > BillW50 <BillW50(a)aol.kom> wrote: >> >> Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen >> resolution of 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there >> and I really > > You can easily change it under Linux, too, but you have to RTFM. That is the problem with Linux, isn't it? Everything is in the dang manual which doesn't really exist! But is in pieces all over the Internet at zillions of different IP addresses. Say, this is the 21st Century in the Western world. Wouldn't it just be better to put higher resolutions in the display properties so the user can just use point and click to get there? You know, like Windows? >> Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with >> disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with >> poor eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go >> for it. > > LCD panels display best at native resolution. They use interpolation > to display non-native resolutions which lessens image quality. Yeah so? Tell that to the old guy who can barely see the BIG "E" on the eye chart. Or all of those game designers who tells you to use lower screen resolutions for improved performance. There are many reasons why somebody might not want to use the native LCD screen resolutions. And I don't fault anybody who wants to do so. And if you think LCD panels are that different than color CRTs, think again. As take a magnifying glass to a lit CRT screen and you will find they are made up of tiny pixels as well. So they are not all that different in this respect. -- Bill Asus EEE PC 702G8 ~ 2GB RAM ~ 16GB-SDHC Windows XP SP2
From: Barry Watzman on 16 Jan 2010 12:50
If you want to do things the wrong way, fine. Microsoft provided a way to adjust the size of things. But telling the driver that the screen resolution is one thing when it's really another will degrade image quality. FACT. BillW50 wrote: > In news:hiramg$h70$1(a)news.eternal-september.org, > Barry Watzman typed on Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:10:01 -0500: >> You are doing this (attempting to do it) WRONG. >> >> LCD panels should NEVER be run at ANY resolution other than their one, >> fixed resolution. It's not like a CRT, which has no physical pixels. >> An LCD does have physical pixels, and that is the ONLY resolution that >> should ever be used... > > Really? The BIOS, POST, and while Windows is loading, doesn't use the > screen's native resolution. So how come those that build these things > don't listen to you? > > Heck this netbook I am using right now has a native screen resolution of > 800x480. If I am running under Linux, I am stuck there and I really > dislike it. But under Windows, I can change it easily to 800x600 which > is so much better. And this is the resolution I use 99% of the time. I > even have from time to time used higher resolutions to view websites > that are very wide. > > We can use different resolutions in two ways. One method actually uses > the screen's native resolution, but you use only a scrolling window of > the total desktop. Or if the resolution is less, it might use less of > the screen. The other way is reducing the larger resolution to fit into > the native resolution. Works well except for those tiny fonts and slows > the computer down. lol > > Unlike you Barry. I don't try to make things harder for those with > disabilities or even those with super abilities. If some guy with poor > eyesight wants to use 800x600 on his 32 inch monitor, I say go for it. > <grin> > |