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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |