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
  #11  
Old September 10th 19, 09:11 AM 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 , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/8/19 4:08 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Peter Jason
writes:
Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
conditions?


Taking this _just_ as astigmatism-meaning-wrong-aspect-ratio, which it
has become clear is far from the whole story ...

snip

An alternative would be to deliberately set your graphics card
(including the in-built one if it's a laptop) to a resolution that's the
wrong aspect ratio for your monitor. I've seen people do this often
enough in practice, by mistake (most commonly feeding a widescreen
monitor with a 4:3 signal); it had never occurred to me that it might
actually be useful!


Now... Add in some macular degeneration. That would be me. VBG

You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.


(I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)
[]
I'd already learned some monitors cannot display light greys, light
blues, and thin lines. Although the line issue may be tied to the
color of the line. I don't know.


I'd be surprised if any monitor _used at its native resolution_ can't
display a one-pixel-wide line, unless as you say it's unable to
distinguish the colour of the line from the surrounding area (in which
case the thickness of the line wouldn't have much effect).

I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
panel. So, that's what I bought.


The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
you've found ...

And boy, am I glad I did. I learned some monitors also cannot display
light yellows!

0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)


Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.


Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.

I'd rather be able to read the screen with barely noticeable blurring,
than fight with the recommended resolution to figure out what is on the
screen.


I find native resolution the best, if only for psychological reasons (if
I "know" there's blurring due to using the wrong one, then I think I'll
see it even if I can't really!).

With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.


The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong
resolution - for example, 640480 and 800600 are both 4:3, but not in
integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
for that for people with poor sight though.

1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.


What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?


Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as I
tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.


Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.
[]
If you're using a laptop, need magnification, and are unwilling to buy
an external monitor, I'd recommend giving up now. SVGA (800X600) just
won't display enough data on the screen to be useful, IMO.


Certainly, a lot of modern software - especially web page design - is no
friend of the visually impaired, in many ways. (Many web designers
assume far too big a screen even for the rest of us, but that's a
different subject!) But you are right. I do have an interest in access
for the VH/VI, so I attend the odd show on the matter. For those for
whom magnification does work - i. e. they do have some sight - blowing
up just part of the screen seems to be the preferred option, rather than
using SVGA or less.

2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
(I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)


I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.


If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)

There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
picture.)
I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues -
conventional
monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
and the possibility of using them sideways.


Agreed, check all avenues before choosing.

I purchased a 24" Asus Pro-Art monitor. $369, shipped and sold by
Amazon, for the Mac Mini. On my W7, W8, W10, Linux mint (KVM switched)
is a Dell U2412M. Both are IPS panels, although I didn't know anything
about the panel types when bought the Dell. Not quite as good, but it
was cheaper.

Input is display port, and based on limited options for testing HDMI
input, I'd avoid that option if possible. VGA was OK, but I had no
means to check DVI.

Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.


Interesting.

I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.

32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
prevented that.


Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
that is.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`Where a calculator on the Eniac is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps
weigh 1.5 tons.' Popular Mechanics, March 1949 (quoted in Computing 1999-12-16)
  #12  
Old September 10th 19, 10:19 AM 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 , J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote:


You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.


(I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)


aspect ratio is not the same as resolution.

50 different resolutions seems high, but there's definitely more than
5-10, from 640x480 (they do still exist) all the way up to 8k displays,
in various sizes and aspect ratios, and even more if you count mobile
devices.



I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
panel. So, that's what I bought.


The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
you've found ...


it's obviously a typo for ips, in plane switching.


0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)


Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.


Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.


with modern hidpi displays, where individual pixels are smaller than
what the eye can resolve, there is no perceptible blur.


If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.


Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios.


see above. it does not.

It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.


changing the aspect ratio will normally letterbox.



I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.


If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on.


that's not what astigmatism does.

I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)


it was never a fad and is still often used, usually with multiple
displays, one of which is in portrait orientation.
  #13  
Old September 10th 19, 04:06 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 9/10/19 2:11 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/8/19 4:08 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Peter Jason
writes:
Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
conditions?


Taking this _just_ as astigmatism-meaning-wrong-aspect-ratio, which it
has become clear is far from the whole story ...

snip

An alternative would be to deliberately set your graphics card
(including the in-built one if it's a laptop) to a resolution that's the
wrong aspect ratio for your monitor. I've seen people do this often
enough in practice, by mistake (most commonly feeding a widescreen
monitor with a 4:3 signal); it had never occurred to me that it might
actually be useful!


Now... Add in some macular degeneration. That would be me. VBG

You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.


(I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)


It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.

For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.

[]
I'd already learned some monitors cannot display light greys, light
blues, and thin lines. Although the line issue may be tied to the
color of the line. I don't know.


I'd be surprised if any monitor _used at its native resolution_ can't
display a one-pixel-wide line, unless as you say it's unable to
distinguish the colour of the line from the surrounding area (in which
case the thickness of the line wouldn't have much effect).


I discovered all of this on websites, not with any programming on my part.

And the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance
management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it,
used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put any
kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The monitor
displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the fields
was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine where the
input field was! LOL

One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me to
about a 40-45˚ angle, and there was the grey background. Not a
practical solution, though. VBG

I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
panel. So, that's what I bought.


The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
you've found ...


Paul and nospam are correct, it should be IPS. Muscle memory, I guess,
but at the same time, I don't see some letters that are "right in front
of me". And in this case, spell checking may be useless.

For instance, at the native resolution, maybe I don't see the letters
"abcd". But if if I go to the next lower resolution with the same
aspect ratio, it may be the only letters that are missing are "cd" due
to the magnification effect.

When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't
get to them!

All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for correcting
the screen display so I can see it.

I don't think MS gives a damn.

And boy, am I glad I did. I learned some monitors also cannot display
light yellows!

0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)


Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.


Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.


It took me a while to get past that mental impediment. But it's now my
"new normal", and I don't even notice it unless I think about it. I
think it helped when I viewed the situation as just looking at a smaller
monitor through a full screen magnifying glass.

I'd rather be able to read the screen with barely noticeable blurring,
than fight with the recommended resolution to figure out what is on the
screen.


I find native resolution the best, if only for psychological reasons (if
I "know" there's blurring due to using the wrong one, then I think I'll
see it even if I can't really!).


The mind does do funny things, doesn't it?

With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.


The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong
resolution - for example, 640×480 and 800×600 are both 4:3, but not in
integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
for that for people with poor sight though.


But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found
an example of 320 X 240.

1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.


What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?


Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as I
tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.


I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out,
when you move the slider in the resolution display.

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.


Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.


No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.

[]
If you're using a laptop, need magnification, and are unwilling to buy
an external monitor, I'd recommend giving up now. SVGA (800X600) just
won't display enough data on the screen to be useful, IMO.


Certainly, a lot of modern software - especially web page design - is no
friend of the visually impaired, in many ways. (Many web designers
assume far too big a screen even for the rest of us, but that's a
different subject!) But you are right. I do have an interest in access
for the VH/VI, so I attend the odd show on the matter. For those for
whom magnification does work - i. e. they do have some sight - blowing
up just part of the screen seems to be the preferred option, rather than
using SVGA or less.

2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
(I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)


I just remembered this today:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl...act=mrc&uact=8

This is before I became a Mac user.

This Pro-Art rotates 90˚ and is 16:10.

I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.


If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)


Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 90˚ to portrait orientation.

There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
picture.)
I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues -
conventional
monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
and the possibility of using them sideways.


Agreed, check all avenues before choosing.

I purchased a 24" Asus Pro-Art monitor. $369, shipped and sold by
Amazon, for the Mac Mini. On my W7, W8, W10, Linux mint (KVM switched)
is a Dell U2412M. Both are IPS panels, although I didn't know anything
about the panel types when bought the Dell. Not quite as good, but it
was cheaper.

Input is display port, and based on limited options for testing HDMI
input, I'd avoid that option if possible. VGA was OK, but I had no
means to check DVI.

Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.


Interesting.


I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".

I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had
a 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer,
and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever
since.

I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.

32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
prevented that.


Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
that is.


My "main" systems are in computer desks with this design style:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...mg.3jCItgMUz-E

Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm
sure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS
monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size.

And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an
apartment, or selling your house? 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!"
  #14  
Old September 10th 19, 04:32 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:

You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.


(I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)


It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.

For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.


which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.


pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays
having the smallest.

https://www.sven.de/dpi/



With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.


The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong
resolution - for example, 640*480 and 800*600 are both 4:3, but not in
integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
for that for people with poor sight though.


But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found
an example of 320 X 240.


not for a computer, you won't, since that's far too small to be usable.
even 800x600 is too small these days.

something that low would be suitable for a status display or perhaps on
the back of a cheap camera.

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.


Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.


No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.


all lcds do that.



I just remembered this today:


https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl....com%2F d%2Fl
400%2Fpict%2F123519789112_%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-Radius.jpg
&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpicclick.com%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-
Radius-123519789112.html&docid=dh6W7UdnqnEM5M&tbnid=LLDNl Xsb-vBhzM%3A&vet=10ah
UKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRgQMwhgKA0wDQ..i&w=400& h=365&bih=919&biw=1432&q=rad
ius%20monitor&ved=0ahUKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRg QMwhgKA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8


the actual image url is:
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/i...gU-lI_eK2OV4Gz
Fkt9oWTfdL0sHR3DqUQ0Ti8p8u9mmDK-D

that's the radius pivot, which not only physically rotated, but the
desktop would redraw with the new aspect ratio when it was rotated.

https://uploads.ifdesign.de/award_im...electro_180.jp
g

now, the real fun is using an ultrawide display in portrait mode

landscape:
https://cdn.macrumors.com/article-ne...de1-800x450.jp
g
portrait:
https://cdn.macrumors.com/article-ne...de2-800x450.jp
g
  #15  
Old September 10th 19, 09:49 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 , Ken Springer
writes:
[]
For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I


Crikey, I hadn't come across 5:4 since the early days of TV ...

actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found


.... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just
thought it was the next one up from 1024768, and hadn't done the sums.

one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.


Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions
than ratios.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier
to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different
sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit
looking at that spec.


They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of
the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels
have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into
advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be
individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If
you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_
sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price -
end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024768.)
[]
And the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance
management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it,
used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put
any kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The
monitor displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the
fields was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine
where the input field was! LOL

One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me
to about a 40-450 practical solution, though. VBG


Ah, the infamous viewing angle problem!
[]
When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL


Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will
fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
don't move, to preserve alignment.

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
can't get to them!


The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.

All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for
correcting the screen display so I can see it.

I don't think MS gives a damn.


Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's
_some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to
increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't
matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such
"standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party
software.
[]
But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not
found an example of 320 X 240.


No, but - assuming you can set that as a resolution these days! (I
thought 640480 was the minimum for, maybe, Windows '9x, and that went
up to 800600 for, possibly, XP) - there would be no _blurring_ if
viewed on a monitor of native resolution 640480, or 1280960; each
320240 pixel would actually occupy a whole number of native pixels. (In
these hypothetical examples, 22 or 44.)

1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.

What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?

Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as

tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.


I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out,
when you move the slider in the resolution display.


You might be right about the presentation (greyed out rows). I'll admit
I haven't really looked at how the options are presented for an edition
or two of Windows. I've just looked, and I see what you mean about a
slider and greyed options on Windows 7.

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.

[]
No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.


Mine too. When shortscreen displays first started to be the norm,
though, I was amazed how many people accepted squashed displays - or,
even, seemed not to notice that they _were_ squashed. It has improved of
late as shortscreen has become the norm for both monitor and OS.
[]
This Pro-Art rotates 900

Or 8:5 (-:

I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.

If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the
world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)


Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 900

You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough
approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people
were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had
been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer
use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two
portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still
work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that
certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in. (Even for
movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row
of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly
introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So
we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time.
[]
Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.

Interesting.


I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".


See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple
windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3;
probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to.

I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had


Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big
old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most
purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends
(especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the
screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good.

a 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer,
and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever
since.


If we're talking CRT, B&W was always intrinsically higher resolution
than colour.

I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.

32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
prevented that.

32" CRTs were big, heavy beasts.

Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
that is.


My "main" systems are in computer desks with this design style:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=is...bih=919&ei=87Z
3XeyeJYHZ-gT2joGABw&q=computer+hutch+desk&oq=computer+hutch& gs_l=img.1.2
.0l4j0i5i30l2j0i8i30l4.587.2507..5237...0.0..0.89 .988.14......0....1..gw
s-wiz-img.3jCItgMUz-E

Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm


Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages
of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.

sure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS
monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size.

And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an
apartment, or selling your house? G

Good question! I suppose you could use a floor stand, but that'd have to
be pretty heavy - or some sort of arm thing attached to the desk.

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

I've never really "got" sport or physical exercise. The only muscle I've ever
enjoyed exercising is the one between my ears. - Beryl Hales, Radio Times
24-30 March 2012
  #16  
Old September 11th 19, 02:55 AM 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 9/10/19 9:32 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Springer
wrote:


snip

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.


which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?


Aw, crap. That should be screen resolutions is 57, and one of the
resolutions works out to be an aspect ratio of 683:386. But I see Paul
apparently figured out my mistake.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.


pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays
having the smallest.


It may be I gave up too soon.

snip

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.

Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.


No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.


all lcds do that.


As long as the screen resolution in use has an aspect ratio that is
correct for the monitor in use.




--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"
  #17  
Old September 11th 19, 03:57 AM 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:


No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.


all lcds do that.


As long as the screen resolution in use has an aspect ratio that is
correct for the monitor in use.


that doesn't change the specs of the display.

obviously, whatever is displayed can be stretched or compressed in all
sorts of ways, including compensating for mismatched aspect ratios.
  #18  
Old September 11th 19, 04:01 AM 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 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:


snip

actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found


... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just
thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums.


I thought the same thing, years ago, when I was experimenting with
screen resolutions on a CRT monitor. Wanted the highest resolution I
could comfortably use. Then, I noticed that 1280X1024 just didn't look
right, so did the numbers.

one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.


Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions
than ratios.


OH, I meant resolutions, ans noted in my reply to nospam.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier
to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different
sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit
looking at that spec.


They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of
the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels
have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into
advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be
individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If
you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_
sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price -
end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.)


I think it may have more effect on the quality of the image, than
anything else.

[]
When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL


Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will
fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
don't move, to preserve alignment.


Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that.

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
can't get to them!


The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.


They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them?

All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for
correcting the screen display so I can see it.

I don't think MS gives a damn.


Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's
_some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to
increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't
matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such
"standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party
software.


The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be
adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it.

snip

This Pro-Art rotates 900

Or 8:5 (-:


Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used the
degree sign when I typed the message.

snip

Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 900


Another place where I typed the degree sign.

You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough
approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people
were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had
been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer
use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two
portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still
work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that
certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in.


When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just
never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
done faster.

(Even for
movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row
of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly
introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So
we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time.


You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.

[]
Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.
Interesting.


I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".


See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple
windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3;
probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to.


If I'm using a laptop with a smaller screen, I have no problem using my
5:4 monitor. It comes closer to what the owner of the laptop will see
when I'm finished. IIRC, it may have a DVI video input, too.

I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had


Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big
old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most
purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends
(especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the
screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good.


Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you.
Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer.

snip

Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm


Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages
of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.


The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at
least 10 years older.

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!"
  #19  
Old September 11th 19, 05:13 AM 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 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.


I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone
else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe.

I guess they just
never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
done faster.


Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them.

  #20  
Old September 11th 19, 11:51 AM 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 , Ken Springer
writes:
On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Ken Springer
writes:

[]
When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL

Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions)
will
fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
don't move, to preserve alignment.


Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that.


_Could_ a _contact_ lens - or surgically attached one? In other words,
is the distortion in your lens, retina, or image processing brainware?

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
can't get to them!

The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.


They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them?


Good question. (By the way, when I was looking yesterday, this system
only offered 100% and 125%. No 150%.) Probably lethargy.
[]
The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be
adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it.


If pressed, they'd probably say they removed those settings because some
people change them then don't remember how (or _that_) they did, and
think something's wrong. Rather like you could change various aspects of
the display (colours, widths, fonts ...) in Windows 95 - and still could
in '98, but had to press an "Advanced" button to get at them (-:.

snip

This Pro-Art rotates 900

Or 8:5 (-:


Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used
the degree sign when I typed the message.


Yes. At least, I didn't amend the quoted text; I think it had been
amended by the time I got it, rather than my system, which can display
the sign OK. (That's the degree sign, in case it has been amended by
the time _you_ see it.)

snip

(I use "[]" to mean the same thing.)
[]
When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just
never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
done faster.


Me too, though we should be aware of Char's view (-:.
[]
You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.


Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie
scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its
introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing
was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for,
which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its
introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we
are. (And it's preferable to VVS!)
[]
Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you.
Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer.


Have you had the false diagnosis of commercial use? (When I got it, I
looked into the pricing: it's such a good utility that I would have
considered it. But it's so high it really is only for the professional
user - especially as it's monthly rather than a one-off.)
[]
Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the
advantages
of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.


The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at
least 10 years older.


Ah, so designed in the CRT era; fair enough. I assumed that the ones
(computer desks) on the page you gave me a link to were mostly new ones,
and I was surprised they all still showed the monitor as standing in one
of the boxes, rather than fixed thus wasting less space.

snip

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

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.
 




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 03:26 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.