CRT Resolution Trouble
in [Hardware]
|
From: ~misfit~ on 12 Dec 2009 22:22 Somewhere on teh intarwebs VanguardLH wrote: > misfit wrote: > >> VanguardLH wrote: >> >>> George wrote: >>> >>>> Perhaps the 128mb video card is inadequate. >>> >>> Depends on what applications your friend runs. It might be >>> sufficient for the OS but that would depend on the OS. Windows XP >>> has a minimum requirement of 64MB but recommends 128MB. >> >> For *video* RAM? Are you sure you're not thinking Vista? 128MB VRAM >> was huge back when XP came out, only the best cards had that much. >> However a lot of machines with on-board graphics and 8MB shared RAM >> came with XP. > > Was a bit tired after shoveling out the 3rd house. From the KB > article at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865, yep, I got it > wrong. The memory spec was for system RAM, not video RAM. Thought so. Wasn't getting at you, just correcting for the lurkers. ;-) > The Dell > Dimension 8300 (what the OP says his friend has) looks to have out > around 2003. At that time, 128MB was mainstream (at a price point in > the cost curve that made for an attractive purchase and not at the > high cost of the bleeding edge). I got an ATI 9600 128MB back then > because the price was doable. I don't buy high-cost bleeding edge > stuff. Same here mate. However, when XP came out (in 2001?) 128MB VRAM was cutting-edge. 64MB was more common and a lot of systems were still using 32MB or even less. > The VRAM really isn't much of an issue with the OS but more with the > apps the user wants to run (which usually ends up being games pushing > users to get more VRAM, more pipelines, later DirectX and Shader > version support, and a better GPU). Unless the OS has some useless eye-candy like 'Aero'. <g> > The OP reports his friend solved the problem by installing a > different video card. Probably what happened is the friend also > installed a video driver for that card which doesn't use a screen > resolution or frequency that isn't supported by the > so-far-unidentified monitor. Problem might've gone away by > installing the .inf file that defines the monitor or by going to a > newer or older video driver for the original video card that was > inside the friend's computer. Yup. -- Cheers, Shaun. "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
From: ~misfit~ on 12 Dec 2009 22:24 Somewhere on teh intarwebs kony wrote: > On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 17:20:40 -0600, VanguardLH <V(a)nguard.LH> > wrote: > > >> The VRAM really isn't much of an issue with the OS but more with the >> apps the user wants to run (which usually ends up being games >> pushing users to get more VRAM, more pipelines, later DirectX and >> Shader version support, and a better GPU). >> >> The OP reports his friend solved the problem by installing a >> different video card. Probably what happened is the friend also >> installed a video driver for that card which doesn't use a screen >> resolution or frequency that isn't supported by the >> so-far-unidentified monitor. Problem might've gone away by >> installing the .inf file that defines the monitor or by going to a >> newer or older video driver for the original video card that was >> inside the friend's computer. > > I suspect the video card was actually an FX5200. I wondered that too. I'm not that 'up with the play' since my friends grew up a bit and stopped needing me to build them gaming machines and I've gone to laptops myself. However I've not heard of a 'FX3200'. > At one > point the nVidia driver probably did't support such (at the > time) unusual resolutions and didn't have custom resolution > settings, so the prior advice some gave to get the most up > to date nVidia driver should suffice. > > I think it's fair to assume the system owner isn't much of a > gamer, or at least not anything that was modern within the > last several years if still using an FX5200. Agreed. It was a small step above on-board graphics at best. -- Cheers, Shaun. "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
From: Jon Danniken on 13 Dec 2009 02:13 ~misfit~ wrote: > > > Yeah, you're right. As I was writing my post I had a vague > recollection of such a beast (the Sony) that I'd seen in a magazine's > 'new and extremely expensive' section. I never did see one in a store > and have never heard of one in use though. Aye, they were mainly for workstation graphics. Don't think many at the consumer level looked at them as an affordable option (they still ain't!). > The only reason that monitors for computer use (as opposed to > multimedia use) have gone widescreen is because the most common and > cheapest technology for making them, twisted nematic (TN) LCDs have > dismal vertical viewing angles. Changing your viewing angle by 10 > degrees can change colours so having a 'tall' monitor really shows it > up. Form a normal viewing position the angle from top to bottom may > differ by 10 degrees. Consequently, to get more screen real estate > the answer was to go shorter and wider (which also fitted in with TV > trends). > Seriously, for most computer work having a 4:3 screen is far better > than a widescreen. With widescreen you're forever scrolling and a lot > of apps (and websites) don't stretch all the way to the sides of the > monitor anyway. I wouldn't swap my (laptop's) 4:3 ratio 15" 1400 x > 1050 IPS (not TN) screen for anything. (At least not in a 15" size). > Also, if I ever see a ~22" 4:3 1600 x 1200 LCD for sale second-hand, > preferably IPS, in good condition at the right price I'll be buying > it straight away (a mate has a couple, they're great). > > I'll avoid the widescreen trend for as long as I reasonably can. I agree with you on that; the only reason I have a widescreen now is that they are common, so the price is actually cheaper than looking for a more square version. Mind you, I also play games, which makes use of the width and it's nice in photoshop because you can have a chunk of screen left over for your palettes and such. Jon
From: ~misfit~ on 13 Dec 2009 18:50 Somewhere on teh intarwebs Jon Danniken wrote: > ~misfit~ wrote: >> >> >> Yeah, you're right. As I was writing my post I had a vague >> recollection of such a beast (the Sony) that I'd seen in a magazine's >> 'new and extremely expensive' section. I never did see one in a store >> and have never heard of one in use though. > > Aye, they were mainly for workstation graphics. Don't think many at > the consumer level looked at them as an affordable option (they still > ain't!). Hmm, yeah, I figured that from the price and the blurb. Damn expensive! They must have been really rare though, I'm on a lot of mailing lists for clearance / auction houses that specialise in IT gear as well as a couple outfits that deal with ex-lease stuff. I get screeds of lists a week and I've never seen one. >> The only reason that monitors for computer use (as opposed to >> multimedia use) have gone widescreen is because the most common and >> cheapest technology for making them, twisted nematic (TN) LCDs have >> dismal vertical viewing angles. Changing your viewing angle by 10 >> degrees can change colours so having a 'tall' monitor really shows it >> up. Form a normal viewing position the angle from top to bottom may >> differ by 10 degrees. Consequently, to get more screen real estate >> the answer was to go shorter and wider (which also fitted in with TV >> trends). >> Seriously, for most computer work having a 4:3 screen is far better >> than a widescreen. With widescreen you're forever scrolling and a lot >> of apps (and websites) don't stretch all the way to the sides of the >> monitor anyway. I wouldn't swap my (laptop's) 4:3 ratio 15" 1400 x >> 1050 IPS (not TN) screen for anything. (At least not in a 15" size). >> Also, if I ever see a ~22" 4:3 1600 x 1200 LCD for sale second-hand, >> preferably IPS, in good condition at the right price I'll be buying >> it straight away (a mate has a couple, they're great). >> >> I'll avoid the widescreen trend for as long as I reasonably can. > > I agree with you on that; the only reason I have a widescreen now is > that they are common, so the price is actually cheaper than looking > for a more square version. Way cheaper, more's the pity. :-( > Mind you, I also play games, which makes > use of the width and it's nice in photoshop because you can have a > chunk of screen left over for your palettes and such. I play a couple games too but they're older ones that don't / can't use widescreen. It just deforms the characters / maps. Good point about photoshop though, I don't use it (probably like 95% of users out there who have widescreens) so hadn't thought about that. -- Cheers, Shaun. "Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
From: Jon Danniken on 14 Dec 2009 08:31
~misfit~ wrote: > > > I play a couple games too but they're older ones that don't / can't > use widescreen. It just deforms the characters / maps. And it'll give you a headache, too! My monitor has the feature which, by pressing a few butons on the monitor body, provides a 4:3 ratio screen (vertical letterbox on either side). Some other monitors I have seen will automatically detect a 4:3 input and adjust themselves automatically. I wouldn't have purchased this monitor if it didn't have that feature (I still play an older game that likes to be 4:3). There are also ways to trick some older/non-widescreen games into get along with wide screens through custom resolutions and such; here is a site I had bookmarked with that information: http://www.widescreengamingforum.com/wiki/index.php/Essential_Games_List Jon |