Screen is 1928 x 1208, not 1920 x 1200

  • Thread starter Thread starter Terry Pinnell
  • Start date Start date
T

Terry Pinnell

I've had this problem for over two years so it's hardly a show-stopper.
But I'm now finally fed up with it and determined to find a fix. I would
much appreciate some help in doing that please.

I have an XP Pro with a Iiyama Prolite E2403WS 24" widescreen monitor,
connected with the recommended DVI input. Screen resolution is set in the
usual way to 1920 x 1200. But for any maximised window the actual position
is always -4,-4 and the size 1928 x 1208. (Or, with the Taskbar unhidden,
1928 x 1180.)

As I have a 512 MB nVIDIA GeoForce 8800GT, I asked about this some months
ago in the appropriate newsgroup (alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia) but
was advised it was a hardware issue. Until now I haven't properly pursued
it. You can't adjust it with the physical monitor settings, which is only
possible for analog connection mode, not DVI.

FWIW, looking under Properties, the driver for the monitor is shown as
C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color\PLE2403WS.ICM

BTW, are there any newsgroups or forums dedicated to monitor issues
please?
 
Terry said:
I've had this problem for over two years so it's hardly a show-stopper.
But I'm now finally fed up with it and determined to find a fix. I would
much appreciate some help in doing that please.

I have an XP Pro with a Iiyama Prolite E2403WS 24" widescreen monitor,
connected with the recommended DVI input. Screen resolution is set in the
usual way to 1920 x 1200. But for any maximised window the actual position
is always -4,-4 and the size 1928 x 1208. (Or, with the Taskbar unhidden,
1928 x 1180.)

As I have a 512 MB nVIDIA GeoForce 8800GT, I asked about this some months
ago in the appropriate newsgroup (alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia) but
was advised it was a hardware issue. Until now I haven't properly pursued
it. You can't adjust it with the physical monitor settings, which is only
possible for analog connection mode, not DVI.

FWIW, looking under Properties, the driver for the monitor is shown as
C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color\PLE2403WS.ICM

BTW, are there any newsgroups or forums dedicated to monitor issues
please?
Click to expand...

By its definition, wouldn't a "maximized" window be attempting to hide
the decorative trim pixels on all four sides of the window ?

When I test Firefox here, in WinXP, and maximize a browser window (so it
touches the edges of the screen), the decorative trim around the edges
disappears off the screen. That might correspond to your (-4, -4)
offset.

A tool like Powerstrip from Entechtaiwan, can be used to solve monitor
resolution issues. But it sounds like your problem has more to do with
Windows and decoration styles, than anything.

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

Paul
 
Paul said:
By its definition, wouldn't a "maximized" window be attempting to hide
the decorative trim pixels on all four sides of the window ?

When I test Firefox here, in WinXP, and maximize a browser window (so it
touches the edges of the screen), the decorative trim around the edges
disappears off the screen. That might correspond to your (-4, -4)
offset.

A tool like Powerstrip from Entechtaiwan, can be used to solve monitor
resolution issues. But it sounds like your problem has more to do with
Windows and decoration styles, than anything.

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

Paul
Click to expand...

Not sure I follow you, Paul. In a few decades of PC usage I've never seen
a maximised window that wasn't the same size as the screen resolution, or
located anywhere other than 0,0.

(On a CRT monitor of course, you can shift its appearance around, hiding
edges or whatever if you wish. But that doesn't alter its properties. )

The actual size and position I described comes from various
tools/utilities that can show that information for any selected window.
 
Darklight said:
question do you know anyone with a lcd monitor that you
could use to make a simple test for resolution faults?
Click to expand...

I have another LCD monitor on another PC.

Does that mean you think it might be a PC problem (Windows XP or BIOS)?
I've been assuming it's down to the monitor itself.
 
Terry Pinnell said:
I've had this problem for over two years so it's hardly a show-stopper.
But I'm now finally fed up with it and determined to find a fix. I would
much appreciate some help in doing that please.

I have an XP Pro with a Iiyama Prolite E2403WS 24" widescreen monitor,
connected with the recommended DVI input. Screen resolution is set in the
usual way to 1920 x 1200. But for any maximised window the actual position
is always -4,-4 and the size 1928 x 1208. (Or, with the Taskbar unhidden,
1928 x 1180.)

As I have a 512 MB nVIDIA GeoForce 8800GT, I asked about this some months
ago in the appropriate newsgroup (alt.comp.periphs.videocards.nvidia) but
was advised it was a hardware issue. Until now I haven't properly pursued
it. You can't adjust it with the physical monitor settings, which is only
possible for analog connection mode, not DVI.
Click to expand...

I had a similar problem, but this was with an ATI RADEON card not an nVIDIA.
I don't have the pc infront of me, but buried in the array of settings was
one for somethig like "overscan" (if I remember I'll confirm the setting
tonight when I do have it infront of me) which caused this. The default
setting meant that the image was slightly magnified, which lead to the
usable resolution being lower than the physical display was capable of.

So it sounds to me like a software/driver issue and not a hardware problem.

Hope this helps.
 
Brian Cryer said:
I had a similar problem, but this was with an ATI RADEON card not an nVIDIA.
I don't have the pc infront of me, but buried in the array of settings was
one for somethig like "overscan" (if I remember I'll confirm the setting
tonight when I do have it infront of me) which caused this. The default
setting meant that the image was slightly magnified, which lead to the
usable resolution being lower than the physical display was capable of.

So it sounds to me like a software/driver issue and not a hardware problem.

Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

Thanks Brian. In that case (and BigH2K's similar suggestion), I'll post
again in the nVidia group. I don't see anything in the nVidia Control
Panel that looks relevant. As you see, using it with 'customise' wasn't
fruitful.
 
Terry said:
Not sure I follow you, Paul. In a few decades of PC usage I've never seen
a maximised window that wasn't the same size as the screen resolution, or
located anywhere other than 0,0.

(On a CRT monitor of course, you can shift its appearance around, hiding
edges or whatever if you wish. But that doesn't alter its properties. )

The actual size and position I described comes from various
tools/utilities that can show that information for any selected window.
Click to expand...

What tool are you using, to get coordinates for the maximized window ?

Paul
 
Terry Pinnell said:
I have another LCD monitor on another PC.

Does that mean you think it might be a PC problem (Windows XP or BIOS)?
I've been assuming it's down to the monitor itself.
Click to expand...

I don't follow this thread to know what you guys have talked about before.
But from this message (the 1st and only), the the answer is pretty much
depending on the VIDEO CARD and may be what the monitor is capable of.

Just go to the Displaying option then pick whatever available resolution
in the list. About the monitor, you should be able to pick the wide-screen
mode on CRT monitor if you wish (or other way around on wide-screen LCD
monitor).
 
In message <[email protected]> Terry Pinnell
Not sure I follow you, Paul. In a few decades of PC usage I've never seen
a maximised window that wasn't the same size as the screen resolution, or
located anywhere other than 0,0.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, you haven't been paying a lot of attention. Windows has
done this since Windows 95, and possibly Windows 3.x era (although I
don't have a machine handy to test against)

Similarly, the bottom of the frame drops below the Taskbar.

You can make it more obvious what is happening by tweaking your window
display settings to make the frame thicker.

Note that if you place a window at 0,0 then maximize it the "frame"
around the window disappears when you maximize and the window itself
moves to -4,-4.
 
DevilsPGD said:
In message <[email protected]> Terry Pinnell


Unfortunately, you haven't been paying a lot of attention. Windows has
done this since Windows 95, and possibly Windows 3.x era (although I
don't have a machine handy to test against)

Similarly, the bottom of the frame drops below the Taskbar.

You can make it more obvious what is happening by tweaking your window
display settings to make the frame thicker.

Note that if you place a window at 0,0 then maximize it the "frame"
around the window disappears when you maximize and the window itself
moves to -4,-4.
Click to expand...

Thanks all. Looks like I have indeed been labouring under a basic
misunderstanding then!

I suppose for most of the time, under various versions of Windows, I've
used CRT monitors, when the issue has never come up. It's emerged recently
with my LCD monitors. Mainly because I'm using macros (Macro Express Pro),
in which I sometimes have to resort to pixel-colour testing to perform
operations reliably. (A simple example is checking the red 'X' top left of
the Firefox toolbar, to see whether a page has finished loading.) Precise
positioning is obviously therefore critical. Now that I see the error of
my ways I can take appropriate steps to get consistent results, thanks.
 
Thanks Brian. In that case (and BigH2K's similar suggestion), I'll post
again in the nVidia group. I don't see anything in the nVidia Control
Panel that looks relevant. As you see, using it with 'customise' wasn't
fruitful.
Click to expand...

I've now had a chance to check, and I had the name wrong. On the
Catalyst Control Center (the control widget for my ATI RADEON card) its
called "Scaling Option" and goes from 0% ("overscan") to15%
("underscan"). I forget what the default was (possibly about 4%, but
setting it to 0% is what I needed to avoid the problem.

Hope you get it sorted. Once you do please post back because no doubt
others will encounter this thread whilst trying to resolve the same problem.
 
In message <[email protected]> Terry Pinnell
I suppose for most of the time, under various versions of Windows, I've
used CRT monitors, when the issue has never come up. It's emerged recently
with my LCD monitors.
Click to expand...

CRTs are the same as LCDs here, this is just a matter of how Windows
places maximized vs restored windows within the logical viewport.

Neither a CRT nor LCD exposes negative areas of the screen to the user,
these pixels are simply not rendered by the monitor.
Mainly because I'm using macros (Macro Express Pro),
in which I sometimes have to resort to pixel-colour testing to perform
operations reliably. (A simple example is checking the red 'X' top left of
the Firefox toolbar, to see whether a page has finished loading.) Precise
positioning is obviously therefore critical. Now that I see the error of
my ways I can take appropriate steps to get consistent results, thanks.
Click to expand...

Makes sense. As an alternative, try positioning the window explicitly
rather than maximizing, or look for pixels based on their position
relative to the window rather than the edge of the screen.

Happy hunting!
 
Brian Cryer said:
I've now had a chance to check, and I had the name wrong. On the
Catalyst Control Center (the control widget for my ATI RADEON card) its
called "Scaling Option" and goes from 0% ("overscan") to15%
("underscan"). I forget what the default was (possibly about 4%, but
setting it to 0% is what I needed to avoid the problem.

Hope you get it sorted. Once you do please post back because no doubt
others will encounter this thread whilst trying to resolve the same problem.
Click to expand...

Thanks for following up, Brian, but I guess you must have missed a few
earlier posts. It turns out to be standard Windows behaviour, not a
graphics card or monitor or driver issue at all!
 
Grinder said:
Then I suggest, with a purely educational intent, that you have not been
looking closely enough. Maximized windows are oversized to the screen so
as to push the border into the non-viewable area.
Click to expand...

I don't think that is true for 2 reasons: I program using Visual Studio and
when I get the position and size of a maximised window, I get 0,0 and full
screen resolution. Also, with a 2 screen setup, maximising a window on one
screen and you don't get any pixels of 'edging' appearing on the side of the
other screen.
 
John Jordan said:
Yeah, I just checked with Spy++. This is absolutely normal behaviour for
XP - a maximised window has a (-4,-4) offset and size screen+8.
Click to expand...

Really? Perhaps its an XP Theme setting. C++/MFC GetWindowPos gives me 0,0
 
GT said:
Really? Perhaps its an XP Theme setting. C++/MFC GetWindowPos gives me 0,0
Click to expand...

Interesting, thanks for following up. Maybe it isn't such a cut-and-dried
issue as I'd concluded up-thread?

As for 'theme', I'm just using plain vanilla Windows XP Pro and current
theme is set to 'Modified theme'. I think that just reflects a background
colour change I made years ago. Anyway, I just switched to 'Windows
Classic' but still get maximised windows reported at -4, -4 and 8 pixels
over-sized as described.
 
Back
Top