J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Rene Lamontagne
writes:
On 2019-09-13 10:08 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/13/19 8:48 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-13 7:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
[]
The native resolution of my monitors are not in question. The are
16:10.

It's Rene's that puzzles me. It's listed on Asus's site at 16:9,
yet 3
of the resolutions in his list are 16:10 resolutions. At the same
time,
he did not list 1600:900, which Mark Lloyd suggested he try, which I
*think* he is now using.

So now I'm, in parallel, digging into my Mac options, and the options
there for resolutions are so much smaller. I think, to some
extent, the
options offered may depend on the video inputs the monitor has. The
monitor on the Mac has HDMI, but on the Windows computers, no HDMI.



Yes Ken, I am using the 1600x900 and it really is great with this 27
inch monitor.
So, we made things better for you, even with all our fumbling
around??? LOL But, you've confirmed what I thought would happen
when you correctly play with the settings available to the user. I
think this is one area where I'll have to say that W10 is now
superior to everything else I've checked.
Would you double check your available resolutions list for me? For
me, this is one of those things that I just have to find the answer
for... Why your system offers resolutions that the monitor should not


Yep, here is the list again, this time with my eyes open.

1920x1080
16:9

1680x1050
8:5 (16:10)

1600x1200
4:3

1600x900
16:9

1440x900
8:5

1280x1024
5:4

1280x960
4:3

1280x720
16:9

1152x872
144:109 (!)

1152x864
1024x768
800x600
all 4:3

Fresh off the monitor. :-)

So your combination of graphics card, monitor, and OS (and possibly
drivers for the first two) is clearly _not_ constrained by either the
shape (ratio) of the monitor, or its native resolution. Sounds like it's
ignoring the monitor altogether, and just offering all the resolutions
the graphics card is capable of generating (with a _possible_ upper
limit, though I suspect that's the card's too rather than the monitor).

Do you know what the _monitor's_ native _resolution_ is?

But this system was partially invented to help humans.

The hardware "cares not" about your fascination
with those numbers :-)

If the hardware came with "rotary knobs" for H and V,
people would be turning the knobs like crazy and
noticing "hey, not a lot of these settings look very good".
The canonical values, help with that.

For fifty years, the transmitter has had the necessary
flexibility.

For maybe thirty to thirty five years, the receiver
gained multisync capability, has a scaler inside, and
can do amazing things too.

And the software conspires to prevent you from seeing
just how capable it is.

I'm really surprised in the above, that both of these
are exposed.

1152x872
1152x864

A Windows 7 user might have better luck playing
with the values. (At least, if an NVidia or AMD
video card is involved.)

Paul