CRT Resolution Trouble

  • Thread starter Thread starter George
  • Start date Start date
G

George

I have a friend who has a problem that seems to stem from a mismatch
between what his monitor wants and what his computer can provide. The
monitor wants 1680 x 1050, but the closest choices provided by his AGP
graphics card are 1600 x 1000 or 1920 x 1080. He sets it for the lower
number, but the computer changes that to 1920 x 1080. The too-high
resolution causes the image to jiggle. He then has to go to Control
Panel and set the resolution back a notch to 1600 x 1000.

Beyond another graphics card, how else can he rid himself of this
annoyance?
 
I have a friend who has a problem that seems to stem from a mismatch
between what his monitor wants and what his computer can provide. The
monitor wants 1680 x 1050, but the closest choices provided by his AGP
graphics card are 1600 x 1000 or 1920 x 1080. He sets it for the lower
number, but the computer changes that to 1920 x 1080. The too-high
resolution causes the image to jiggle. He then has to go to Control
Panel and set the resolution back a notch to 1600 x 1000.

Beyond another graphics card, how else can he rid himself of this
annoyance?
Click to expand...


Go to the website of the video card's manufacturer
and see if they have newer drivers...
then update the current ones
 
I have a friend who has a problem that seems to stem from a mismatch
between what his monitor wants and what his computer can provide. The
monitor wants 1680 x 1050, but the closest choices provided by his AGP
graphics card are 1600 x 1000 or 1920 x 1080. He sets it for the lower
number, but the computer changes that to 1920 x 1080. The too-high
resolution causes the image to jiggle. He then has to go to Control
Panel and set the resolution back a notch to 1600 x 1000.

Beyond another graphics card, how else can he rid himself of this
annoyance?
Click to expand...

CRT monitors do not "want" a particular resolution (as do LCD monitors that
have a native resolution at which they best display an image and every other
resolution results in interpolation that causes fuzziness or fringe
coloring). More likely you meant that the CRT has a *maximum* resolution of
1680x1050.

We are to guess of which OS your "friend" uses? You mentioned Control Panel
so would that be some version of Windows? Assuming this navigation works
under the unidentified version and edition of Windows, in Control Panel,
open the Display applet. Under the Settings tab, click the Advanced button.
Under the Monitor tab, is the actual monitor listed there or some wrong or
generic version of monitor? You want the correct monitor listed there
because then the option "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display"
becomes valid. The monitor's definition (.inf file) specifies what screen
resolutions and frequencies it can support. Those not supported should not
be selected.

Go to the monitor manufacturer's web site and get their config file for that
monitor (which hasn't been identified here). Follow their instructions for
installing their info file. Then select that monitor (if not already) in
the Monitor tab, enable the Hide option, and pick a resolution that the
monitor can actually support.
 
I have a friend who has a problem that seems to stem from a mismatch
between what his monitor wants and what his computer can provide. The
monitor wants 1680 x 1050, but the closest choices provided by his AGP
graphics card are 1600 x 1000 or 1920 x 1080. He sets it for the lower
number, but the computer changes that to 1920 x 1080. The too-high
resolution causes the image to jiggle. He then has to go to Control
Panel and set the resolution back a notch to 1600 x 1000.

Beyond another graphics card, how else can he rid himself of this
annoyance?
Click to expand...

Some graphics drivers support a "custom" resolution setting.
But just try and find it :-)

If you can't figure out how to do it, for an ATI or Nvidia
graphics card, there is always Powerstrip (software with trial
period).

http://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/ps.shtm

http://forums.entechtaiwan.com/index.php?board=7.20

"Custom resolution primer"
http://forums.entechtaiwan.com/index.php?topic=24.0

The silicon has been fully programmable, for a couple
of decades. It is just the crappy drivers and GUI
control panels, that prevent users from getting
what they need. I built a frame buffer around 1985 using
a single controller chip for the display functions,
and even back then, the X, Y, front porch, back porch,
and so on, were fully programmable, down to the nearest
8 bits (one character wide). I could have virtually any
resolution I wanted, to the limits of the RAMDAC bandwidth.
And that was a long time ago.

The video card companies just want you to suffer a bit.

Paul
 
Somewhere said:
I have a friend who has a problem that seems to stem from a mismatch
between what his monitor wants and what his computer can provide. The
monitor wants 1680 x 1050, but the closest choices provided by his
AGP graphics card are 1600 x 1000 or 1920 x 1080. He sets it for the
lower number, but the computer changes that to 1920 x 1080. The
too-high resolution causes the image to jiggle. He then has to go to
Control Panel and set the resolution back a notch to 1600 x 1000.

Beyond another graphics card, how else can he rid himself of this
annoyance?
Click to expand...
[snip]
However, it seems likely you have an LCD not CRT monitor
since it has a resolution of 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

<phew!>

I was reading this thread with ever-increasing incredulity. Unless it's a
regional thing I've never known of wide-screen CRT monitors. In fact I
thought that the OP might well be some sort of trolling.
 
~misfit~ said:
Somewhere said:
I have a friend who has a problem that seems to stem from a mismatch
between what his monitor wants and what his computer can provide. The
monitor wants 1680 x 1050, but the closest choices provided by his
AGP graphics card are 1600 x 1000 or 1920 x 1080. He sets it for the
lower number, but the computer changes that to 1920 x 1080. The
too-high resolution causes the image to jiggle. He then has to go to
Control Panel and set the resolution back a notch to 1600 x 1000.

Beyond another graphics card, how else can he rid himself of this
annoyance?
Click to expand...
[snip]
However, it seems likely you have an LCD not CRT monitor
since it has a resolution of 1680x1050.
Click to expand...

<phew!>

I was reading this thread with ever-increasing incredulity. Unless it's a
regional thing I've never known of wide-screen CRT monitors. In fact I
thought that the OP might well be some sort of trolling.
Click to expand...

I think it is one of these :-) I really like the evil glow
coming out of the sides.

http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/bchafy/monitor/crtlcd.html

Paul
 
<phew!>

I was reading this thread with ever-increasing incredulity. Unless it's a
regional thing I've never known of wide-screen CRT monitors. In fact I
thought that the OP might well be some sort of trolling.
Click to expand...

No I was not trolling. It may have seemed so. Sorry about that/

Geo
 
CRT monitors do not "want" a particular resolution (as do LCD monitors that
have a native resolution at which they best display an image and every other
resolution results in interpolation that causes fuzziness or fringe
coloring). More likely you meant that the CRT has a *maximum* resolution of
1680x1050.

We are to guess of which OS your "friend" uses? You mentioned Control Panel
so would that be some version of Windows?
Click to expand...

I realized as soon as I posted this item, that I should have been more
specific as to my friend's hardware and software. I wrote him an
email for that info, but he said he was going to bed and would provide
that info in the AM. If/when he does I will provide it. In the
meantime I will forward your reply.

I do know he is running XP SP2 on an older Dell.
I thank you

Geo.
 
No I was not trolling. It may have seemed so. Sorry about that/

Geo
Click to expand...



yeah I just re-read

on a CRT you would not need custom resolutions

It should be very easy to find the proper resolution

800 x 600 would be a good default setting unless the monitor is
an ancient 15"

it's the LCD's that can be a bit critical
 
I realized as soon as I posted this item, that I should have been more
specific as to my friend's hardware and software. I wrote him an
email for that info, but he said he was going to bed and would provide
that info in the AM. If/when he does I will provide it. In the
meantime I will forward your reply.
Click to expand...

Here are his specs:

* Motherboard is Dell Dimension 8300

* CPU is Intel Pentium 4 3G Northwood HyperThreading

* AGP card is Microsoft nVIDIA GeForce FX3200 128mb

Perhaps the 128mb video card is inadequate.

Thanks Geo
 
Here are his specs:

* Motherboard is Dell Dimension 8300
Click to expand...

So does that mean your friend bought a complete Dell computer that included
the monitor, too, but which you didn't mention here? Or is your friend
using a different monitor or one that was obtained separately of some bundle
of pre-built hardware from Dell?

The point was to find out if the *monitor* was specified in the video setup
so the modes that it did not support could not be selected. Is it really a
CRT (cathode-ray tube) monitor? What is it's make and model?
* CPU is Intel Pentium 4 3G Northwood HyperThreading

* AGP card is Microsoft nVIDIA GeForce FX3200 128mb
Click to expand...

Microsoft doesn't make (or authorize rebranded) video cards. Go to
http://www.microsoft.com/hardware to see what is labeled as Microsoft
hardware (although Microsoft doesn't make any of it but has the manufacturer
slap the "Microsoft" brand on it; i.e., it is someone else's hardware
rebranded with Microsoft's name).

When was the last time your friend updated his video driver? Did he update
and now has the problem? Sometimes newer drivers resolve problems.
Sometimes they cause problems and you have to back off to a prior version.

http://www.nvidia.com/Download/index.aspx?lang=en-us

If his video card isn't listed in the drop-down listboxes, pick the "Legacy"
product type, or click on the link for archived drivers (for old and
unsupported models).
Perhaps the 128mb video card is inadequate.
Click to expand...

Depends on what applications your friend runs. It might be sufficient for
the OS but that would depend on the OS. Windows XP has a minimum
requirement of 64MB but recommends 128MB.

You still never mentioned WHICH operating system? Was I right in my *guess*
that your friend is using Windows? Which version? Which edition?
 
misfit said:
I was reading this thread with ever-increasing incredulity. Unless it's a
regional thing I've never known of wide-screen CRT monitors.
Click to expand...

I've seen a Samsung 21" SyncMaster 1100 CRT monitor that supported 2048 x
1536. I doubt that was a max resolution unique to just that make and model.
It's been nearly a decade since I used a CRT at home or work. Wouldn't a
widescreen aspect ratio on a CRT monitor simply mean you get black bars (top
and bottom) unless you vertically stretch out the display?
 
Here are his specs:

* Motherboard is Dell Dimension 8300

* CPU is Intel Pentium 4 3G Northwood HyperThreading

* AGP card is Microsoft nVIDIA GeForce FX3200 128mb

Perhaps the 128mb video card is inadequate.

Thanks Geo
Click to expand...


My friend has just e-mailed me that changing to another spare video
card he had solved his problem.

Thanks for your insights. The issue should be dead now.

Geo
 
~misfit~ said:
I was reading this thread with ever-increasing incredulity. Unless
it's a regional thing I've never known of wide-screen CRT monitors.
In fact I thought that the OP might well be some sort of trolling.
Click to expand...

Sony made a number of wide format CRT monitors. A few years ago they were
available via Ebay or other vendors; here's one in particular:

http://www.accurateit.com/details.asp?iid=474 and another:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Widescreen-Trinitron-Monitor/dp/B00004YNSR

I always dreamed about having one of those, but they were hideously
expensive, and now I just have a regular old widescreen LCD to placate my
visual needs.

Jon
 
Somewhere said:
Sony made a number of wide format CRT monitors. A few years ago they
were available via Ebay or other vendors; here's one in particular:

http://www.accurateit.com/details.asp?iid=474 and another:

http://www.amazon.com/Sony-GDM-FW900-Widescreen-Trinitron-Monitor/dp/B00004YNSR

I always dreamed about having one of those, but they were hideously
expensive, and now I just have a regular old widescreen LCD to
placate my visual needs.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you're right. As I was writing my post I had a vague recollection of
such a beast (the Sony) that I'd seen in a magazine's 'new and extremely
expensive' section. I never did see one in a store and have never heard of
one in use though.

The only reason that monitors for computer use (as opposed to multimedia
use) have gone widescreen is because the most common and cheapest technology
for making them, twisted nematic (TN) LCDs have dismal vertical viewing
angles. Changing your viewing angle by 10 degrees can change colours so
having a 'tall' monitor really shows it up. Form a normal viewing position
the angle from top to bottom may differ by 10 degrees. Consequently, to get
more screen real estate the answer was to go shorter and wider (which also
fitted in with TV trends).

Seriously, for most computer work having a 4:3 screen is far better than a
widescreen. With widescreen you're forever scrolling and a lot of apps (and
websites) don't stretch all the way to the sides of the monitor anyway. I
wouldn't swap my (laptop's) 4:3 ratio 15" 1400 x 1050 IPS (not TN) screen
for anything. (At least not in a 15" size). Also, if I ever see a ~22" 4:3
1600 x 1200 LCD for sale second-hand, preferably IPS, in good condition at
the right price I'll be buying it straight away (a mate has a couple,
they're great).

I'll avoid the widescreen trend for as long as I reasonably can.
--
Cheers,
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
 
Somewhere said:
No I was not trolling. It may have seemed so. Sorry about that/
Click to expand...

OK. So I take it that it's not a CRT?

Or is it one of those odd-ball ones that Jon linked to?
 
Somewhere said:
Here are his specs:

* Motherboard is Dell Dimension 8300

* CPU is Intel Pentium 4 3G Northwood HyperThreading

* AGP card is Microsoft nVIDIA GeForce FX3200 128mb

Perhaps the 128mb video card is inadequate.
Click to expand...

What make and model is the monitor George?
 
Somewhere said:
(e-mail address removed) wrote: [snip]
Perhaps the 128mb video card is inadequate.
Click to expand...

Depends on what applications your friend runs. It might be
sufficient for the OS but that would depend on the OS. Windows XP
has a minimum requirement of 64MB but recommends 128MB.
Click to expand...

For *video* RAM? Are you sure you're not thinking Vista? 128MB VRAM was huge
back when XP came out, only the best cards had that much. However a lot of
machines with on-board graphics and 8MB shared RAM came with XP.
--
Cheers,
Shaun.

"Give a man a fire and he's warm for the day. But set fire to him and he's
warm for the rest of his life." Terry Pratchet, 'Jingo'.
 
misfit said:
For *video* RAM? Are you sure you're not thinking Vista? 128MB VRAM was huge
back when XP came out, only the best cards had that much. However a lot of
machines with on-board graphics and 8MB shared RAM came with XP.
Click to expand...

Was a bit tired after shoveling out the 3rd house. From the KB article at
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/314865, yep, I got it wrong. The memory
spec was for system RAM, not video RAM. The Dell Dimension 8300 (what the
OP says his friend has) looks to have out around 2003. At that time, 128MB
was mainstream (at a price point in the cost curve that made for an
attractive purchase and not at the high cost of the bleeding edge). I got
an ATI 9600 128MB back then because the price was doable. I don't buy
high-cost bleeding edge stuff.

The VRAM really isn't much of an issue with the OS but more with the apps
the user wants to run (which usually ends up being games pushing users to
get more VRAM, more pipelines, later DirectX and Shader version support, and
a better GPU).

The OP reports his friend solved the problem by installing a different video
card. Probably what happened is the friend also installed a video driver
for that card which doesn't use a screen resolution or frequency that isn't
supported by the so-far-unidentified monitor. Problem might've gone away by
installing the .inf file that defines the monitor or by going to a newer or
older video driver for the original video card that was inside the friend's
computer.
 
Back
Top