If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/12/19 5:04 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer wrote: I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user. actually it doesn't. what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and tolerance for crap. Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it. of course they matter and nobody said anything about setting it to where it can't be read, which isn't possible with a normal lcd anyway. That's not what I said. I said the best resolution may not be readable for some people. This is a problem for me with Windows 7. It simply doesn't have the settings available that Windows 10 has. a hi-dpi display set to its native resolution would result in everything being very tiny and hard to read, but that isn't an option that's normally available. This seems to be a perspective you cannot comprehend. it's you who doesn't comprehend. You are just clueless what it's like if you have a vision issue. I feel sorry you can't have more sympathy for those individuals. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#82
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
In article , Ken Springer
wrote: I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user. actually it doesn't. what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and tolerance for crap. Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it. of course they matter and nobody said anything about setting it to where it can't be read, which isn't possible with a normal lcd anyway. That's not what I said. I said the best resolution may not be readable for some people. nope, you said 'looking good', not that it wasn't readable. those are two very different concepts. This is a problem for me with Windows 7. It simply doesn't have the settings available that Windows 10 has. there's no reason to use win7 anymore, so there's no issue. |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080 This is what is puzzling to me. If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios? I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903) system, the other Mac Mojave. Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10 aspect ratio. It's quite the conundrum. Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card. Or both. G One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best. They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and then in the OS increase font size in GUI From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that worked better...*for* *him*. And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not work well for others. The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual. It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else? The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the best the system can be set. :-) And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either. Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture, and get the EDID table from the monitor ? https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm Paul |
#84
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080 This is what is puzzling to me. If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios? I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903) system, the other Mac Mojave. Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10 aspect ratio. It's quite the conundrum. Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card. Or both. G One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best. They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and then in the OS increase font size in GUI From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that worked better...*for* *him*. And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not work well for others. The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual. It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else? The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the best the system can be set. :-) And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either. Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture, and get the EDID table from the monitor ? https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#85
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080 This is what is puzzling to me. If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios? I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903) system, the other Mac Mojave. Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10 aspect ratio. It's quite the conundrum. Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card. Or both. G One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best. They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and then in the OS increase font size in GUI From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that worked better...*for* *him*. And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not work well for others. The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual. It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else? The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the best the system can be set. :-) And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either. Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture, and get the EDID table from the monitor ? https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now. Install, run, look at the table. Won't take long at all. Paul |
#86
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 2019-09-12 2:44 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 10:57 AM, Rabid Rogue wrote: On 2019-09-12 10:04 a.m., Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote: There is still at least one card which has VGA native, and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is the year of the adapter). What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics? The processor. Generally, those generic GPUs like the Intel HD 4600 and whatever AMD calls the GPU integrated on the AMD A10 family are right there on the processor itself. My apologies, I should have worded that question differently. For the motherboard video connection, not a 3rd party card, in general what's the norm for today?Â* Are they still including VGA there? According to the ASUS motherboard site, it seems that they include HDMI and DisplayPort connectors. VGA works through the HDMI through an adapter it seems. -- Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/12/19 6:08 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080 This is what is puzzling to me. If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios? I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903) system, the other Mac Mojave. Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10 aspect ratio. It's quite the conundrum. Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card. Or both. G One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best. They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and then in the OS increase font size in GUI From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that worked better...*for* *him*. And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not work well for others. The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual. It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else? The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the best the system can be set. :-) And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either. Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture, and get the EDID table from the monitor ? https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now. Install, run, look at the table. Won't take long at all. Just because I look at the table, doesn't mean I'll understand it! LOL I will download it, though. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 9/12/19 6:09 PM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 2:44 p.m., Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 10:57 AM, Rabid Rogue wrote: On 2019-09-12 10:04 a.m., Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote: There is still at least one card which has VGA native, and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is the year of the adapter). What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics? The processor. Generally, those generic GPUs like the Intel HD 4600 and whatever AMD calls the GPU integrated on the AMD A10 family are right there on the processor itself. My apologies, I should have worded that question differently. For the motherboard video connection, not a 3rd party card, in general what's the norm for today?Â* Are they still including VGA there? According to the ASUS motherboard site, it seems that they include HDMI and DisplayPort connectors. VGA works through the HDMI through an adapter it seems. Granted my options for testing HDMI ports, with what I've seen so far, I'm not sure I can trust it to be what I'm looking for. -- Ken MacOS 10.14.5 Firefox 67.0.4 Thunderbird 60.7 "My brain is like lightning, a quick flash and it's gone!" |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
On 2019-09-12 7:08 p.m., Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080 This is what is puzzling to me. If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios? I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios.Â* One attached to W10 (1903) system, the other Mac Mojave. Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10 aspect ratio. It's quite the conundrum. Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card. Or both.Â* G One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best. They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and then in the OS increase font size in GUI Â* From the technical side, true.Â* And I suspect Rene has tried all of this, and still found it lacking.Â* So he tried other settings that worked better...*for* *him*. And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp.Â* There is no one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not work well for others. The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual. It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best.Â* If you can't read what is technically the best...Â* Who cares if you use something else? The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the best the system can be set.Â* :-) And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either. Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture, and get the EDID table from the monitor ? https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now. Install, run, look at the table. Won't take long at all. Â*Â* Paul You're right Paul I installed it and glomed all the monitor info I wanted in about 10 minutes. Thanks for the tip, Rene |
#90
|
|||
|
|||
A screen question.
Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 7:08 p.m., Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: Ken Springer wrote: On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote: BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080 This is what is puzzling to me. If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios? I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903) system, the other Mac Mojave. Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10 aspect ratio. It's quite the conundrum. Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card. Or both. G One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best. They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and then in the OS increase font size in GUI From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that worked better...*for* *him*. And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not work well for others. The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual. It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else? The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the best the system can be set. :-) And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either. Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture, and get the EDID table from the monitor ? https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now. Install, run, look at the table. Won't take long at all. Paul You're right Paul I installed it and glomed all the monitor info I wanted in about 10 minutes. Thanks for the tip, Rene I checked in my archive, and this one shows a little more info. https://s18.postimg.cc/48vzohbmx/moninfo.gif And that's the monitor telling us what it supports, near the bottom. I should have scrolled down and shown all of them. Paul |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Blank screen with full screen dos window | SlackerAPM | General | 5 | August 7th 06 10:30 PM |
Changing windows Start Screen and Shut Down Screen | Javad | Monitors & Displays | 4 | November 27th 04 04:36 PM |
Changing windows Start Screen and Shut Down Screen | Javad | General | 4 | November 27th 04 04:36 PM |
Computer gets to logo screen & then blank screen with blinking cursor | Bill Hopkins | General | 0 | September 2nd 04 09:05 PM |
restore files question and AVERT question | Zavia | Software & Applications | 1 | August 19th 04 04:23 PM |