A Windows 98 & ME forum. Win98banter

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.

Go Back   Home » Win98banter forum » Windows 98 » General
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

A screen question.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #111  
Old September 13th 19, 04:39 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Char Jackson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 45
Default A screen question.

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:15:11 +0100, "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 suppose it's obvious that there's a large dose of arrogance inhabiting
this particular offshoot of the overall thread, starting where Ken
admits to cringing when he sees someone use an application full screen,
on through comments such as "maybe they don't see the error of their
ways".

I think I've been kept in suspense long enough, so it's time to come
clean and tell me/everyone what's wrong with running an application
maximized? What's wrong with running multiple applications, each of them
maximized?

I'm asking for two reasons. One, the unbridled arrogance just bothers
me, and two, my own use case is to use two and sometimes 3 displays,
where each display is likely to have an application running maximized.
About 80% of my applications are run in the maximized state, with the
other 20% (if that) in a windowed state. I use the task bar to switch
between them. Is that wrong? Do I need to make each application's window
as small as reasonably possible so that I can fit more applications on
screen beside each other? So that each window is a tiny peephole through
which I need to scroll around to find what I need? Would that stop the
cringing and the snide comments?

I hope I don't get a reply along the lines of, "well, clearly you've
given it some thought and you're using what works best for you, but
those other clods clearly *haven't* given it any thought at all, and
they are just wrong." My question would be, how can you walk by
someone's desk or office and tell by looking whether they've given
something any thought? That's where the arrogance creeps in, or in this
case, spills in. It's the "I know better how everyone should use their
computer than they do" problem.

Thanks. I feel better. Flame away. :-)

  #112  
Old September 13th 19, 05:38 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Paul[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default A screen question.

Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/13/19 7:46 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:


_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.


That was entechtaiwan PowerStrip.

Which is no longer for sale.

Note that Windows 10, the control panel that used
to have custom resolutions, may no longer be available.
As "pan and scan" has been removed as well. You can't
look at a 1024x768 virtual surface, out of a 1600x1200
total surface, using Windows 10. Other OSes may have that
for you. (I've tested that a few times on Linux.)

*******

As to the question of resolutions:

1) The transmitter is the video card.
The hardware has supported the mode line for *50 years*.

The CRT5027 I bought as a teenager, which was
already an "old" chip when I bought it, had just
the right register set for mode line. That's basically
all it had. You could set the front porch and back porch
and so on.

Supporting the modeline, means at a minimum,
horizontal divisible by 8, vertical divisible by 2

Even back then, there was great flexibility, even if
the display devices were "crude".

2) The receiver (monitor) is multisync.

It has a table of "preferred values".

But, given as the transmitter is /8,/2 capable,
it should really accept *anything* you feed it.
Up until the computed "clock rate", exceeds the
device limits. Then the OSD on the device will
say "Out Of Range".

The trick to all of this, is finding the proprietary
driver and control panel, and the place to put the
"custom resolution". Then, watching as the system
deals with it.

When I was using the CRT5027 (which I did succeed in
making work, with a "converted TV set"), I couldn't
apply nearly as many variables as you can today
with a multisync LCD. My 12" CRT monitor with 12MHz bandwidth
was good for 640x480, and could be considered as a
"non-multisync" device. Which means I could push the
image around a bit with the offset parameters
in the mode line, but could not afford to vary
everything. I was just happy to get it running.
The setup for something like that, would have
around 30% overscan. And the output mode in that
case is "interleaved". Using the TV set, the
presentation order of the data was interleaved,
and the chip took care of that. I used some of
my tiny static RAM chips at the time, for the
frame buffer.

And that was a "monochrome" system, not color.
Color came later. We still had to go through
the Texas Instruments "sprite" generation,
before usable graphics were allowed...
(That "sprite" thing looked awful. A guy
at work did one.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sprite...er_graphics%29

With a sprite, you could take a pixmap and assign it
a direction and velocity. Which was, I suppose,
"perfect for Asteroids" :-/ The color fringes
on everything, would make you puke. The chip had
some limit on how many sprites it could support,
each one having the programming feature. Again,
seemingly tailor-made for Asteroids or Defender.

Paul
  #113  
Old September 13th 19, 05:50 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default A screen question.

On 2019-09-13 10:39 a.m., Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:15:11 +0100, "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 suppose it's obvious that there's a large dose of arrogance inhabiting
this particular offshoot of the overall thread, starting where Ken
admits to cringing when he sees someone use an application full screen,
on through comments such as "maybe they don't see the error of their
ways".

I think I've been kept in suspense long enough, so it's time to come
clean and tell me/everyone what's wrong with running an application
maximized? What's wrong with running multiple applications, each of them
maximized?

I'm asking for two reasons. One, the unbridled arrogance just bothers
me, and two, my own use case is to use two and sometimes 3 displays,
where each display is likely to have an application running maximized.
About 80% of my applications are run in the maximized state, with the
other 20% (if that) in a windowed state. I use the task bar to switch
between them. Is that wrong? Do I need to make each application's window
as small as reasonably possible so that I can fit more applications on
screen beside each other? So that each window is a tiny peephole through
which I need to scroll around to find what I need? Would that stop the
cringing and the snide comments?

I hope I don't get a reply along the lines of, "well, clearly you've
given it some thought and you're using what works best for you, but
those other clods clearly *haven't* given it any thought at all, and
they are just wrong." My question would be, how can you walk by
someone's desk or office and tell by looking whether they've given
something any thought? That's where the arrogance creeps in, or in this
case, spills in. It's the "I know better how everyone should use their
computer than they do" problem.

Thanks. I feel better. Flame away. :-)


Due to very poor eyesight and the fact that I mostly use one program at
a time I use maximized about 90% of the time.
Other times I will use two programs side by side, such as a browser and
newsgroup and email reader or notepad etc.

Rene



  #114  
Old September 13th 19, 06:06 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default A screen question.

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:
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???
Â*LOLÂ* But, you've confirmed what I thought would happen when you
correctly play with the settings available to the user.Â* 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?Â* 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.



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

1920x1080
1680x1050
1600x1200
1600x900
1440x900
1280x1024
1280x960
1280x720
1152x872
1152x864
1024x768
800x600
Fresh off the monitor. :-)

Rene



  #115  
Old September 13th 19, 06:09 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default A screen question.

On 9/13/19 9:39 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 14:15:11 +0100, "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.]


Hi, Char,

First, no flaming from me, I don't believe in that crap! LOL

I suppose it's obvious that there's a large dose of arrogance inhabiting
this particular offshoot of the overall thread, starting where Ken
admits to cringing when he sees someone use an application full screen,
on through comments such as "maybe they don't see the error of their
ways".


It depends on what you do after you cringe. G I haven't gone back
through the messages, but I don't think I said anything like "see the
error of their ways."

I think I've been kept in suspense long enough, so it's time to come
clean and tell me/everyone what's wrong with running an application
maximized? What's wrong with running multiple applications, each of them
maximized?


It depends on how you define "wrong". It's "wrong" to drive on the
wrong side of the road, against oncoming traffic. It's also "wrong" to
cheat on the lane lines where you may cause issues.

The first example is not how I see using maximized windows. The second
is closer, but I couldn't think of a real world analogy that matches
100%^ why I "cringe".

I see the maximized way of using your system as usually being less
efficient, and more time consuming, for the average user. And the
average user only has *one* monitor, not multiple monitors. For those
fortunate enough to have multiple monitors, the scenario changes.
Options are more numerous.

Let's assume you have one good size widescreen monitor, let's say 24".

You run everything maximized. You're working on 2 documents, and
copying text from one document to the other. Both documents are in
maximized windows. So...

1, Highlight and copy the desired text.
2. Locate and open the 2nd document.
3. Locate where the copied text goes, then paste.

You have just one monitor. Both document windows are no larger than
needed, ideally each is zoomed so both can be seen at the same time.

1. Highlight the desired text.
2. Drag and drop to the 2nd document.

Less time and effort required for the second scenario.

Both scenarios are mitigated by the software you use. I use a word
processor that has a tabbed UI for the open documents. I could run the
software in a maximized window, have two documents open in smaller
windows within the program's workspace.

Then, there's the scenario of copying from two different types of
software, say from a spreadsheet to a word processor.

I'm asking for two reasons. One, the unbridled arrogance just bothers
me, and two, my own use case is to use two and sometimes 3 displays,
where each display is likely to have an application running maximized.


And this scenario is not average. So, the maximized scenario doesn't
necessarily apply to you. For your work, it may be the best way to get
things done. Someone just posted about using something, Photoshop
maybe(?), where the project was on one display, and all the little
tweaking dialogs were n another display. In that scenario, that's
probably the best way, and the maximized window on one display isn't a
hindrance.

But, you and that user are fortunate enough to be able to afford 2 or
more monitors. Most people are not, and many businesses will not fund
multiple monitors.

About 80% of my applications are run in the maximized state, with the
other 20% (if that) in a windowed state. I use the task bar to switch
between them. Is that wrong?


Not wrong, but is it the most efficient way? That depends on the job at
hand.

Do I need to make each application's window
as small as reasonably possible so that I can fit more applications on
screen beside each other? So that each window is a tiny peephole through
which I need to scroll around to find what I need? Would that stop the
cringing and the snide comments?


Well, let's not go to extremes, here. LOL In the case of a single
monitor user, the hypothetical Photoshop example above is a case where
you could have a window that contains the image, with a bit of workspace
margin, and all the tweaking windows in the remainder of the monitor space.

I hope I don't get a reply along the lines of, "well, clearly you've
given it some thought and you're using what works best for you, but
those other clods clearly *haven't* given it any thought at all, and
they are just wrong." My question would be, how can you walk by
someone's desk or office and tell by looking whether they've given
something any thought?


In my case, I find this when I'm tutoring someone on an issue. I ask
why they do that, I don't tell them they are wrong. I want to ensure
they know they have options, and believe it or not, some don't know, and
to others, it never occurred to them.

Once I know *they* know they have options, then I don't care what they do.

In a way, this is no different than using keyboard shortcuts to do
something, or even a macro utility to automate something, rather than
the extra work of "mousing around". LOL

That's where the arrogance creeps in, or in this
case, spills in. It's the "I know better how everyone should use their
computer than they do" problem.

Thanks. I feel better. Flame away. :-)


G

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
  #116  
Old September 13th 19, 07:33 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default A screen question.

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?

Rene



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

"When _I_ saw him, he was dead." "uh, he looked exactly the same when he was
alive, except he was vertical." (The Trouble with Harry)
  #117  
Old September 13th 19, 07:36 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
J. P. Gilliver (John)[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 25
Default A screen question.

In message , Paul
writes:
[]
With a sprite, you could take a pixmap and assign it
a direction and velocity. Which was, I suppose,
"perfect for Asteroids" :-/ The color fringes
on everything, would make you puke. The chip had
some limit on how many sprites it could support,
each one having the programming feature. Again,
seemingly tailor-made for Asteroids or Defender.

Paul


Asteroids-on-raster, that is. The proper arcade machines used
vector-scan for Asteroids, and IMO looked far better because of that. (I
don't know how they generated their EHT; at a guess, with a dedicated
oscillator. [I doubt with a 50 or 60 Hz transformer! Those were
lethal.])
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"When _I_ saw him, he was dead." "uh, he looked exactly the same when he was
alive, except he was vertical." (The Trouble with Harry)
  #118  
Old September 13th 19, 07:47 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Paul[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 41
Default A screen question.

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
  #119  
Old September 13th 19, 08:33 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Rene Lamontagne
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 26
Default A screen question.

On 2019-09-13 1:33 p.m., 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.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.
Â*So, we made things better for you, even with all our fumbling
around???Â*Â* Â*LOLÂ* But, you've confirmed what I thought would happen
when youÂ* correctly play with the settings available to the user.Â* I
think this isÂ* one area where I'll have to say that W10 is now
superior to everythingÂ* else I've checked.
Â*Would you double check your available resolutions list for me?Â* For
me,Â* this is one of those things that I just have to find the answer
for...Â* 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.Â* :-)


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?

Rene



John


Yes, native resolution is 1920 x 1080.

Rene

  #120  
Old September 13th 19, 10:53 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Ken Springer[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 49
Default A screen question.

On 9/13/19 11:06 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
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:
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???
Â*LOLÂ* But, you've confirmed what I thought would happen when you
correctly play with the settings available to the user.Â* 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?Â* 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.



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

1920x1080
1680x1050
1600x1200
1600x900
1440x900
1280x1024
1280x960
1280x720
1152x872
1152x864
1024x768
800x600
Fresh off the monitor. :-)


Thanks, Rene. This subthread has added 4 new resolutions I didn't have
before.


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




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 05:36 PM
Changing windows Start Screen and Shut Down Screen Javad General 4 November 27th 04 05:36 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 Win98banter.
The comments are property of their posters.