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
  #61  
Old September 12th 19, 04:31 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 2019-09-12 8:29 a.m., Mark Lloyd wrote:
On 9/11/19 10:55 AM, Ken Springer wrote:

[snip]

Could I ask you for a favor?

Would you set your screen resolution to the next lower resolution that
is listed in your screen display options, and let me know if it is any
help?

My monitors are 24", and switching from 1920X1200 to 1600X1000 works
well for me, and now I just never notice I'm not at optimum resolution.

"Optimum" is a crappy word to be used the way MS and the manufacturers
use it.Â* "Optimum" is what works best for the user.

I have a 14-inch laptop with 1920x1080 resolution, which makes the
letters too small. I set it to 1600x900, which has the same aspect ratio.


Thanks Mark, That works great Full edge to edge and the proper ratio,
wonder why I didn't try it before.

Rene

  #62  
Old September 12th 19, 04:32 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 9/12/19 9:13 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 8:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:34 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:02 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 7:37 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 8:23 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:10 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 3:58 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:01 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 2:46 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 10:34 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 11:23 a.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:


snip

Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and moving
into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll just
leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

You're welcome, Rene.Â* I enjoyed the mental exercise.


Having slept on this issue over night, would you want to try something
just for fun?

Try 1440X900, and see what you can do with that.




OK, that looks not bad but leaves about 3/4 inch black on each side.
Got a post from Mark Loyd a little while ago suggesting 1600x900 which
really works great, fills the screen fully and is 16:9, Wonder why I
didn't see it myself, I guess we just see what we want to see at times. :-)


Hmmm... 1600X900 was not in your original list of possible resolutions.

As I just replied to Jonathan Little, your original list of resolutions
as 3 resolutions that are 16:10, which just does not make sense to me if
the monitor is truly 16:9.

Have you tried all the different tweaks shown in Ease of Access with
both resolutions?


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
  #63  
Old September 12th 19, 05:00 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 2019-09-12 10:32 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 9:13 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 8:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:34 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:02 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 7:37 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 8:23 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:10 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 3:58 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:01 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 2:46 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 10:34 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 11:23 a.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

snip

Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and moving
into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll
just
leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

You're welcome, Rene.Â* I enjoyed the mental exercise.

Having slept on this issue over night, would you want to try something
just for fun?

Try 1440X900, and see what you can do with that.




OK, that looks not bad but leaves about 3/4 inch black on each side.
Got a post from Mark Loyd a little while ago suggesting 1600x900 which
really worksÂ* great, fills the screen fully and is 16:9, Wonder why I
didn't see it myself, I guess we just see what we want to see at
times. :-)


Hmmm...Â* 1600X900 was not in your original list of possible resolutions.

As I just replied to Jonathan Little, your original list of resolutions
as 3 resolutions that are 16:10, which just does not make sense to me if
the monitor is truly 16:9.

Have you tried all the different tweaks shown in Ease of Access with
both resolutions?



To add to the mix I just went and checked my sons System, this really
gets crazy.
He has the same Asus MX279 monitor, But I built his system with an Intel
i7 8700 CPU/GPU with Intel UHD630 graphics hooked up HDMI to HDMI cable
same as mine , Mine has an AMD CPU/GPU with Vega 11 Graphics.
His has additional settings of
1400x1050
1360x768
1366x768
but his shows none of the lower ones below 1280x720 which is his lowest,
So it would seem that the settings are very CPU/GPU dependent.
There, that should help to stir the pot. :-)

Rene

  #64  
Old September 12th 19, 05:35 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 9/12/19 10:00 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 10:32 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 9:13 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 8:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:34 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:02 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 7:37 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 8:23 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:10 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 3:58 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:01 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 2:46 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 10:34 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 11:23 a.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

snip

Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and moving
into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll
just
leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

You're welcome, Rene.Â* I enjoyed the mental exercise.

Having slept on this issue over night, would you want to try something
just for fun?

Try 1440X900, and see what you can do with that.




OK, that looks not bad but leaves about 3/4 inch black on each side.
Got a post from Mark Loyd a little while ago suggesting 1600x900 which
really worksÂ* great, fills the screen fully and is 16:9, Wonder why I
didn't see it myself, I guess we just see what we want to see at
times. :-)


Hmmm...Â* 1600X900 was not in your original list of possible resolutions.

As I just replied to Jonathan Little, your original list of resolutions
as 3 resolutions that are 16:10, which just does not make sense to me if
the monitor is truly 16:9.

Have you tried all the different tweaks shown in Ease of Access with
both resolutions?



To add to the mix I just went and checked my sons System, this really
gets crazy.
He has the same Asus MX279 monitor, But I built his system with an Intel
i7 8700 CPU/GPU with Intel UHD630 graphics hooked up HDMI to HDMI cable
same as mine , Mine has an AMD CPU/GPU with Vega 11 Graphics.
His has additional settings of
1400x1050
1360x768
1366x768
but his shows none of the lower ones below 1280x720 which is his lowest,
So it would seem that the settings are very CPU/GPU dependent.
There, that should help to stir the pot. :-)


ROTFLMAO!!!

The various combos of hardware has always been in my mind as being a
factor in what you can do when it comes to trying to compensate for
visual issues.

My thought right now is, there will never be a single size fits all
solution to visual issues. It boils down to knowing how to access the
various settings plus what the hardware can do.

That means all solutions are individual. Plus, one hardware system may
work better than another for any individual.

If you were to try to custom build a system for someone, I'm thinking
you need to select the hardware combination that gives you the widest
range of options.

I'd love to help fellow seniors and anyone else set their system up to
work the best for them, but selecting the hardware is way beyond my
abilities. After configuring the visual aspects of the system, now you
have to move on to configuring the UI and such for ease of use.
Customizing the start menu, do you put shortcuts on the taskbar, or the
desktop, and do you simply create keyboard shortcuts.

It's no wonder people get frustrated with their computers, and simply
walk away.

--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
  #65  
Old September 12th 19, 05:57 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Rabid Rogue
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default A screen question.

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.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue
  #66  
Old September 12th 19, 06:03 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
nospam[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7
Default A screen question.

In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


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 would be interpolated, and since it's not a hidpi display, it would
not look good. however, it's still possible.

on the mac, in the displays system preference, option-click the scaled
button and it will show many more choices.

for windows:
https://superuser.com/questions/1209...esolution-on-w
indows-10

It's quite the conundrum.


not really.
  #67  
Old September 12th 19, 06:08 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 9/12/19 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.


You can do some things with black bars on sides, or top/bottom.

You can scale things (which might look terrible).

Some display devices for example, support 1360x768, 1366x768, 1368x768,
as all three are possible output signals (in some situation), so the
monitor will claim to deal with them. And like a set-top-box, it
messes around with a "conversion" until it fits. Some earlier devices
may have attempted using a scaler to deal with 1366, which might
happen to look bad depending on the native resolution of the monitor.

The limits are "hardware developer creativity" and "looks crappy".
If a solution looks crappy, it might not get offered. Because the
customer might assume the product is defective and send it back.

You'll notice that when Windows 10 doesn't have a display driver,
it outputs 1024x768 using the Basic Display Driver, which doesn't
look that bad, but circles are not circles on a lot of
monitors. Just so you know it isn't doing "native output".
That driver refuses to offer any other choices, even though
strictly speaking, it should be able to offer anything. The value
is one of the early VESA values 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, which
is less than the output resolution required to ruin non-multisync
monitors. That's how it was selected.

The Wikipedia article(s) do seem to list 1440x900 (today), but it wasn't
in any lists "at first". You might have had 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x1024
and then 1600x1200, completely missing 1440x900 and 1920x1080
(which came later). That's one thing the articles might be missing,
is the history of "which wave" a resolution choice arrived in.
I'm not convinced all the values in the tables have "equal weight".
As at first, some values were "resisted".

In addition, a couple of video cards were missing certain resolutions
because the *driver writer* took it upon himself to prevent the
driver from showing the DVI output on the card, didn't work
properly above 135MHz. One resolution went missing because
of a "math error" and that one was added back in as a bug fix.
Some NVidia cards had trouble making the 165MHz clock rate
and the pads on the chip weren't fast enough. At one time,
current source type 622Mb/sec diff pads were the limit. But gradually
the pads got faster and faster. The 165MHz clock was a 1650Mbit/sec
data rate, which is close to three times the 622 rate of not
that long before it. Today, HDMI is 330MHz at least, so the
outputs go that much faster at the top end. And eventually,
the cable loss and max cable length, cut into the fun. The
higher the frequency, the more "rounded" the bits become
and the eye starts to close. However, when you use a scope
(I've tried this), you can "see a blur on the scope", and
the receiver still manages to extract a signal. Which when
you're looking at it, is pretty amazing. I've had cases
where stuff wasn't a blur... and it still didn't work.
So you count your blessings on clock-with-data interfaces
like that. R,G,B,CLK with CLK at 1/10th rate.

Paul
  #68  
Old September 12th 19, 06:33 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,alt.windows7.general,microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Jonathan N. Little
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default A screen question.

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.
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

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
  #69  
Old September 12th 19, 07:29 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 2019-09-12 11:35 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 10:00 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 10:32 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 9:13 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 8:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:34 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:02 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 7:37 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 8:23 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:10 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 3:58 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:01 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 2:46 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 10:34 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 11:23 a.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

snip

Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and
moving
into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll
just
leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

You're welcome, Rene.Â* I enjoyed the mental exercise.

Having slept on this issue over night, would you want to try something
just for fun?

Try 1440X900, and see what you can do with that.




OK, that looks not bad but leaves about 3/4 inch black on each side.
Got a post from Mark Loyd a little while ago suggesting 1600x900 which
really worksÂ* great, fills the screen fully and is 16:9, Wonder why I
didn't see it myself, I guess we just see what we want to see at
times. :-)

Hmmm...Â* 1600X900 was not in your original list of possible resolutions.

As I just replied to Jonathan Little, your original list of resolutions
as 3 resolutions that are 16:10, which just does not make sense to me if
the monitor is truly 16:9.

Have you tried all the different tweaks shown in Ease of Access with
both resolutions?



To add to the mix I just went and checked my sons System, this really
gets crazy.
He has the same Asus MX279 monitor, But I built his system with an Intel
i7 8700 CPU/GPU with Intel UHD630 graphics hooked up HDMI to HDMI cable
same as mine , Mine has an AMD CPU/GPU with Vega 11 Graphics.
His has additional settings of
1400x1050
1360x768
1366x768
but his shows none of the lower ones below 1280x720 which is his lowest,
So it would seem that the settings are very CPU/GPU dependent.
There, that should help to stir the pot.Â* :-)


ROTFLMAO!!!

The various combos of hardware has always been in my mind as being a
factor in what you can do when it comes to trying to compensate for
visual issues.

My thought right now is, there will never be a single size fits all
solution to visual issues.Â* It boils down to knowing how to access the
various settings plus what the hardware can do.

That means all solutions are individual.Â* Plus, one hardware system may
work better than another for any individual.

If you were to try to custom build a system for someone, I'm thinking
you need to select the hardware combination that gives you the widest
range of options.

I'd love to help fellow seniors and anyone else set their system up to
work the best for them, but selecting the hardware is way beyond my
abilities.Â* After configuring the visual aspects of the system, now you
have to move on to configuring the UI and such for ease of use.
Customizing the start menu, do you put shortcuts on the taskbar, or the
desktop, and do you simply create keyboard shortcuts.

It's no wonder people get frustrated with their computers, and simply
walk away.


Yes, it can be a confusing experience for people who do not really have
the knowledge required, My son forinstance has no interest in learning
about the inards of computers, If his system gives trouble all I will
hear is "Dad, could you please fix my computer, it is doing or not
doing xxx".
BTW when I did the original resolution list I must have been half asleep.

Rene

  #70  
Old September 12th 19, 07:42 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 9/12/19 12:29 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 11:35 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 10:00 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 10:32 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 9:13 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 8:59 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:34 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 9:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 9:02 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 7:37 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 8:23 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 3:10 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 3:58 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 2:01 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 2:46 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 10:34 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
On 2019-09-11 11:23 a.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

snip

Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and
moving
into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll
just
leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

You're welcome, Rene.Â* I enjoyed the mental exercise.

Having slept on this issue over night, would you want to try something
just for fun?

Try 1440X900, and see what you can do with that.




OK, that looks not bad but leaves about 3/4 inch black on each side.
Got a post from Mark Loyd a little while ago suggesting 1600x900 which
really worksÂ* great, fills the screen fully and is 16:9, Wonder why I
didn't see it myself, I guess we just see what we want to see at
times. :-)

Hmmm...Â* 1600X900 was not in your original list of possible resolutions.

As I just replied to Jonathan Little, your original list of resolutions
as 3 resolutions that are 16:10, which just does not make sense to me if
the monitor is truly 16:9.

Have you tried all the different tweaks shown in Ease of Access with
both resolutions?



To add to the mix I just went and checked my sons System, this really
gets crazy.
He has the same Asus MX279 monitor, But I built his system with an Intel
i7 8700 CPU/GPU with Intel UHD630 graphics hooked up HDMI to HDMI cable
same as mine , Mine has an AMD CPU/GPU with Vega 11 Graphics.
His has additional settings of
1400x1050
1360x768
1366x768
but his shows none of the lower ones below 1280x720 which is his lowest,
So it would seem that the settings are very CPU/GPU dependent.
There, that should help to stir the pot.Â* :-)


ROTFLMAO!!!

The various combos of hardware has always been in my mind as being a
factor in what you can do when it comes to trying to compensate for
visual issues.

My thought right now is, there will never be a single size fits all
solution to visual issues.Â* It boils down to knowing how to access the
various settings plus what the hardware can do.

That means all solutions are individual.Â* Plus, one hardware system may
work better than another for any individual.

If you were to try to custom build a system for someone, I'm thinking
you need to select the hardware combination that gives you the widest
range of options.

I'd love to help fellow seniors and anyone else set their system up to
work the best for them, but selecting the hardware is way beyond my
abilities.Â* After configuring the visual aspects of the system, now you
have to move on to configuring the UI and such for ease of use.
Customizing the start menu, do you put shortcuts on the taskbar, or the
desktop, and do you simply create keyboard shortcuts.

It's no wonder people get frustrated with their computers, and simply
walk away.


Yes, it can be a confusing experience for people who do not really have
the knowledge required, My son forinstance has no interest in learning
about the inards of computers, If his system gives trouble all I will
hear is "Dad, could you please fix my computer, it is doing or not
doing xxx".


I hear this from everyone, for the most part. And that attitude just
hinders their ability to use the computer effectively. Especially in
the workplace.

BTW when I did the original resolution list I must have been half asleep.


That seems to be my normal state! 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!"
 




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 02:10 PM.


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