A screen question.

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? Are they still including VGA there?


--
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 9/12/19 11:03 AM, nospam wrote:
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.

I've known about interpolation since before I owned Windows or Mac.

I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.

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

Ayup, know that.

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

One of the posts in that thread gives you a link to a Custom Resolution
Utility, which I'll look into.

A lot of what we are discussing now is OK for me, but certainly not
something I'd recommend to the less knowledgeable user.

--
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 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080

This is what is puzzling to me.

If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?

I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios.Â* One attached to W10 (1903)
system, the other Mac Mojave.

Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
aspect ratio.

It's quite the conundrum.


Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card.

Or both. G

One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old
multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best.
They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase
the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and
then in the OS increase font size in GUI

From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of
this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that
worked better...*for* *him*.

And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no
one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not
work well for others.

The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual.
It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read
what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else?
The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the
best the system can be set. :-)

And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either.


--
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 2019-09-12 11:57 a.m., 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.



The 2 new boards I have used in the last month, one is an Asus z390
prime Intel board, The other an Asus b450-f AMD board.
Both have Displaymate and HDMI outputs, No DVI or VGA.

Rene

On 9/12/19 1:32 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 11:57 a.m., 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.



The 2 new boards I have used in the last month, one is an Asus z390
prime Intel board, The other an Asus b450-f AMD board.
Both have Displaymate and HDMI outputs, No DVI or VGA.

So, if the person who gets a system with one of those boards made,
already has a really nice monitor but it doesn't have Displayport or
HDMI, that person also is forced into a new monitor.


--
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 2019-09-12 2:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 1:32 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 11:57 a.m., 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.



The 2 new boards I have used in the last month, one is an Asus z390
prime Intel board, The other an Asus b450-f AMD board.
Both have Displaymate and HDMI outputs, No DVI or VGA.

So, if the person who gets a system with one of those boards made,
already has a really nice monitor but it doesn't have Displayport or
HDMI, that person also is forced into a new monitor.



Or an HDMI or displayport to VGA or DVI cable or adapter and cable.

Rene

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.

I've known about interpolation since before I owned Windows or Mac.

nobody said you didn't.

I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.

actually it doesn't.

what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
tolerance for crap.

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

Ayup, know that.

then 1440x900 should show up.

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

One of the posts in that thread gives you a link to a Custom Resolution
Utility, which I'll look into.

it should show up there too.

On 9/12/19 2:19 PM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:

snip

I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.

actually it doesn't.

what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
tolerance for crap.

Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it. This seems to
be a perspective you cannot comprehend.

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

Ayup, know that.

then 1440x900 should show up.

It should, but it doesn't.

snip
--
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 9/12/19 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

snip

The Wikipedia article(s) do seem to list 1440x900 (today), but it wasn't
in any lists "at first".

FWIW, I have an HP W1907 in the back room, native resolution is
1440X900. I believe I have a laptop also, but didn't dig them all out
to check.

Seems like a chicken or the egg question, which came first, monitors
with that resolution, or graphics cards...


snip


--
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 article , Ken Springer
wrote:

I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.

actually it doesn't.

what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
tolerance for crap.

Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it.

of course they matter and nobody said anything about setting it to
where it can't be read, which isn't possible with a normal lcd anyway.

a hi-dpi display set to its native resolution would result in
everything being very tiny and hard to read, but that isn't an option
that's normally available.

This seems to
be a perspective you cannot comprehend.

it's you who doesn't comprehend.