A screen question.

On 2019-09-12 8:21 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
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.

Possibly not but HDMI is clearly the best option considering just about
everything has that port if it has been built after 2005 or so.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

In message , Eric Stevens
writes:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:18:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Eric Stevens
writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
monitors? :-)

That depends how you use it! For example, if you open a word-processor,
is it maximised across both monitors? (-:
[]

I justify the use of two screens mainly for image processing:
PhotoShop and Light Room. Image on one screen and all the little
twiddly windows and dockers on another.

But having got two screens it is great (for example) to have Firefox
on one and Agent on the other. Again, a word processor on one and a
spread sheet on another with (searfch) Everything and several examples
of Windows Explorer tucked in a corner.

You use your resources intelligently! What Ken (and I) find cringeworthy
is people who use _maximised_ windows, i. e. a single application full
screen, on a large single monitor. (Especially if they don't realise
that isn't the only option; if they know and _choose_ to, that's their
choice.) [IME, people with two or more monitors usually know what
they're doing; I don't _think_ I've ever seen such a user with only two,
maximised, prog.s running.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/13/19 2:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
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.

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?

The native resolution of my monitors are not in question. The are 16:10.

16:10 (or 8:5, really!) is a _ratio_, not a resolution. The confusion
between these two terms is plaguing this thread!

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.


I don't know if using HDMI, or other hardware, _forces_ bi-directional
communication, thus locking out certain resolutions _or_ ratios.

Many years ago, I met someone in the vintage TV world who, where most of
her fellow enthusiasts used hardware converters to drive old system A
televisions ("405 line"), had - in Linux - programmed some graphics card
to generate the correct signals directly. (405 lines, less flyback, with
interlace, at 25 frames [50 fields] per second. [4:3, or possibly even
5:4.]) I presume such direct control of resolution, ratio, and
frame/field rate is not nearly as easy with Windows, and possibly isn't
_possible_ with modern graphics cards.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Don't hit the keys so hard, it hurts.

On 9/13/19 7:06 AM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 8:21 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
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.

Possibly not but HDMI is clearly the best option considering just about
everything has that port if it has been built after 2005 or so.

I'm sure my Dell was built after 2005, as I bought it not too long after
Windows 8 was released. It was billed as "Business Class", and a 16:9
aspect ratio is not even offered in the onscreen display. And the Asus
Pro-Art doesn't have any option for aspect ratio.

I've been trying to find out what resolutions are potentially available
from the hardware in my Mac system, that is not offered by Mojave, but
no luck so far. It's like it's a national secret!! LOL


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 9/13/19 7:25 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/13/19 2:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
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.

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?

The native resolution of my monitors are not in question. The are 16:10.

16:10 (or 8:5, really!) is a _ratio_, not a resolution. The confusion
between these two terms is plaguing this thread!

And I am constantly mixing the two up!!! Just caught myself doing it
again! ARGGGGGHHHHHH!

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.


I don't know if using HDMI, or other hardware, _forces_ bi-directional
communication, thus locking out certain resolutions _or_ ratios.

Many years ago, I met someone in the vintage TV world who, where most of
her fellow enthusiasts used hardware converters to drive old system A
televisions ("405 line"), had - in Linux - programmed some graphics card
to generate the correct signals directly. (405 lines, less flyback, with
interlace, at 25 frames [50 fields] per second. [4:3, or possibly even
5:4.]) I presume such direct control of resolution, ratio, and
frame/field rate is not nearly as easy with Windows, and possibly isn't
_possible_ with modern graphics cards.

The Custom Resolution Utility, that I found from a nospam post, might be
able to do that, but I don't have time today to play with them and a
half dozen others on my list. I've got two laptops I need to finish up
today.



--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 9/13/19 7:15 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Eric Stevens
writes:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:18:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Eric Stevens
writes:
On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson
wrote:

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
monitors? :-)

That depends how you use it! For example, if you open a word-processor,
is it maximised across both monitors? (-:
[]

I justify the use of two screens mainly for image processing:
PhotoShop and Light Room. Image on one screen and all the little
twiddly windows and dockers on another.

But having got two screens it is great (for example) to have Firefox
on one and Agent on the other. Again, a word processor on one and a
spread sheet on another with (searfch) Everything and several examples
of Windows Explorer tucked in a corner.

You use your resources intelligently! What Ken (and I) find cringeworthy
is people who use _maximised_ windows, i. e. a single application full
screen, on a large single monitor. (Especially if they don't realise
that isn't the only option; if they know and _choose_ to, that's their
choice.) [IME, people with two or more monitors usually know what
they're doing; I don't _think_ I've ever seen such a user with only two,
maximised, prog.s running.]

I'm not sure I would agree with you on the two monitor users knowing
what they are doing. I see too many users who "hunt and peck" and find
a way to accomplish what they want, but have no clue about what they are
doing.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
I'm sure my Dell was built after 2005, as I bought it not too long
after Windows 8 was released. It was billed as "Business Class", and a
16:9 aspect ratio is not even offered in the onscreen display. And the
Asus Pro-Art doesn't have any option for aspect ratio.

That raises an interesting point: Windows has never offered _ratios_,
just _resolutions_ - initially the user had to figure out for
him/herself what ratio each resolution was, though more recent Windows
has given a _pictorial_ image as you move through the offered
resolutions, which gives some idea of the ratio.

I've been trying to find out what resolutions are potentially available
from the hardware in my Mac system, that is not offered by Mojave, but
no luck so far. It's like it's a national secret!! LOL

_Has_ anyone found a resolution (and/or ratio, and/or frame/field rate)
tweaking utility that will work with modern Windows?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Apologies to [those] who may have been harmed by the scientific inaccuracies
in this post. - Roger Tilbury in UMRA, 2018-3-14

On 9/13/19 7:46 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
I'm sure my Dell was built after 2005, as I bought it not too long
after Windows 8 was released. It was billed as "Business Class", and a
16:9 aspect ratio is not even offered in the onscreen display. And the
Asus Pro-Art doesn't have any option for aspect ratio.

That raises an interesting point: Windows has never offered _ratios_,
just _resolutions_ - initially the user had to figure out for
him/herself what ratio each resolution was, though more recent Windows
has given a _pictorial_ image as you move through the offered
resolutions, which gives some idea of the ratio.

That makes sense, actually. Lots of resolutions have the same ratio.
So, for the ignorant, that would probably be more confusing. I'm sure
the resolutions are "scary" enough for many.

I've been trying to find out what resolutions are potentially available
from the hardware in my Mac system, that is not offered by Mojave, but
no luck so far. It's like it's a national secret!! LOL

_Has_ anyone found a resolution (and/or ratio, and/or frame/field rate)
tweaking utility that will work with modern Windows?

Dunno. That might be a Paul question.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 2019-09-13 7:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/13/19 2:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
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.

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?

The native resolution of my monitors are not in question.Â* The are 16:10.

It's Rene's that puzzles me.Â* It's listed on Asus's site at 16:9, yet 3
of the resolutions in his list are 16:10 resolutions.Â* 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.Â* I think, to some extent, the
options offered may depend on the video inputs the monitor has.Â* 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.

Rene


Rene

On 9/13/19 8:48 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-13 7:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/13/19 2:30 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
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.

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?

The native resolution of my monitors are not in question.Â* The are 16:10.

It's Rene's that puzzles me.Â* It's listed on Asus's site at 16:9, yet 3
of the resolutions in his list are 16:10 resolutions.Â* 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.Â* I think, to some extent, the
options offered may depend on the video inputs the monitor has.Â* 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 have.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"