A screen question.

On 9/12/19 5:04 PM, nospam wrote:
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.

That's not what I said. I said the best resolution may not be readable
for some people. This is a problem for me with Windows 7. It simply
doesn't have the settings available that Windows 10 has.

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.

You are just clueless what it's like if you have a vision issue. I feel
sorry you can't have more sympathy for those individuals.


--
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.

That's not what I said. I said the best resolution may not be readable
for some people.

nope, you said 'looking good', not that it wasn't readable. those are
two very different concepts.

This is a problem for me with Windows 7. It simply
doesn't have the settings available that Windows 10 has.

there's no reason to use win7 anymore, so there's no issue.

Ken Springer wrote:
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. 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.

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Paul

On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
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. 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.

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now.


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

Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
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. 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.

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now.

Install, run, look at the table.

Won't take long at all.

Paul

On 2019-09-12 2:44 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 10:57 AM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 10:04 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote:
There is still at least one card which has VGA native,
and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver
support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards
are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is
the year of the adapter).

What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics?

The processor. Generally, those generic GPUs like the Intel HD 4600 and
whatever AMD calls the GPU integrated on the AMD A10 family are right
there on the processor itself.

My apologies, I should have worded that question differently.

For the motherboard video connection, not a 3rd party card, in general
what's the norm for today?Â* Are they still including VGA there?

According to the ASUS motherboard site, it seems that they include HDMI
and DisplayPort connectors. VGA works through the HDMI through an
adapter it seems.

--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

On 9/12/19 6:08 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
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. 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.

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now.

Install, run, look at the table.

Won't take long at all.

Just because I look at the table, doesn't mean I'll understand it! LOL

I will download it, though.


--
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 6:09 PM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 2:44 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 10:57 AM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
On 2019-09-12 10:04 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote:
There is still at least one card which has VGA native,
and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver
support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards
are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is
the year of the adapter).

What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics?

The processor. Generally, those generic GPUs like the Intel HD 4600 and
whatever AMD calls the GPU integrated on the AMD A10 family are right
there on the processor itself.

My apologies, I should have worded that question differently.

For the motherboard video connection, not a 3rd party card, in general
what's the norm for today?Â* Are they still including VGA there?

According to the ASUS motherboard site, it seems that they include HDMI
and DisplayPort connectors. VGA works through the HDMI through an
adapter it seems.

Granted my options for testing HDMI ports, with what I've seen so far,
I'm not sure I can trust it to be what I'm looking for.


--
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 7:08 p.m., Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
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.Â* 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

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

And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp.Â* 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.Â* If you can't read
what
is technically the best...Â* 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.Â* :-)

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

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now.

Install, run, look at the table.

Won't take long at all.

Â*Â* Paul

You're right Paul I installed it and glomed all the monitor info I
wanted in about 10 minutes.

Thanks for the tip, Rene

Rene Lamontagne wrote:
On 2019-09-12 7:08 p.m., Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
On 9/12/19 5:47 PM, Paul wrote:
Ken Springer wrote:
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. 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.

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now.

Install, run, look at the table.

Won't take long at all.

Paul

You're right Paul I installed it and glomed all the monitor info I
wanted in about 10 minutes.

Thanks for the tip, Rene

I checked in my archive, and this one shows a little more info.

https://s18.postimg.cc/48vzohbmx/moninfo.gif

And that's the monitor telling us what it supports, near the bottom.
I should have scrolled down and shown all of them.

Paul