Screen Resolution Problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter Keith W
  • Start date Start date
K

Keith W

Along with my normal PC I have a second elderly one that is used for back
ups and general messing about. They share keyboard, mouse and widescreen
monitor via a KVM switch. The second machine is a Pentium 3 (500mhz) with
an Intel 810 mobo and an ATI Rage Pro Turbo PCI graphics card. I have
Windows XP Pro installed and the latest drivers for the card from the ATI
website. However, it cannot produce the 1440x900 resolution that the mintor
requires and I am having to make do with 1280x1024 which reduces picture
quality somewhat but I had accepted that, because of the age of the machine,
it was all I could get and I cannot justify buying a new card. Now
however, I have just made it dual boot by installing xubuntu and amazingly
that has identified the monitor size and is producing 1440x900 through the
same mobo and graphics card.

My question is, now that I know Linux can do it, how can I accomplish it in
Windows? I have tried Powerstrip but that gives the same results as
before, i.e. 1280x1024.
 
Keith said:
Along with my normal PC I have a second elderly one that is used for back
ups and general messing about. They share keyboard, mouse and widescreen
monitor via a KVM switch. The second machine is a Pentium 3 (500mhz) with
an Intel 810 mobo and an ATI Rage Pro Turbo PCI graphics card. I have
Windows XP Pro installed and the latest drivers for the card from the ATI
website. However, it cannot produce the 1440x900 resolution that the mintor
requires and I am having to make do with 1280x1024 which reduces picture
quality somewhat but I had accepted that, because of the age of the machine,
it was all I could get and I cannot justify buying a new card. Now
however, I have just made it dual boot by installing xubuntu and amazingly
that has identified the monitor size and is producing 1440x900 through the
same mobo and graphics card.

My question is, now that I know Linux can do it, how can I accomplish it in
Windows? I have tried Powerstrip but that gives the same results as
before, i.e. 1280x1024.
Click to expand...

You added a custom resolution? I would have thought that would work.
It has for me, several times, but it's only diagnostic as I'm too cheap
to shell out $30 for the benefit. There is an earlier version kept on
the site because some of the older video cards are no longer supported.
You might try that.

Check out Tip #4 on this list:
http://www.onlinesoftwareguide.com/0606xptips.html

That looks a bit promising to me so I think I'll try to make that final
tweak on my neighbor's setup. I'll let you know how it turns out.
 
Grinder said:
You added a custom resolution? I would have thought that would work. It
has for me, several times, but it's only diagnostic as I'm too cheap to
shell out $30 for the benefit. There is an earlier version kept on the
site because some of the older video cards are no longer supported. You
might try that.

Check out Tip #4 on this list:
http://www.onlinesoftwareguide.com/0606xptips.html

That looks a bit promising to me so I think I'll try to make that final
tweak on my neighbor's setup. I'll let you know how it turns out.
Click to expand...

Ok, I tried the tip and it didn't work. The registry just got changed
back on restart.

I installed Powerstrip, and had mixed results. Creating and installing
a custom monitor inf did get the stated maximum (optimal) resolution to
show up in my options. I was, however, able to add that resolution
within Powerstrip, and it worked after a restart.
 
Grinder said:
Ok, I tried the tip and it didn't work. The registry just got changed
back on restart.

I installed Powerstrip, and had mixed results. Creating and installing a
custom monitor inf did get the stated maximum (optimal) resolution to show
up in my options. I was, however, able to add that resolution within
Powerstrip, and it worked after a restart.
Click to expand...

I tried Powerstrip, which has worked for me on other PCs but in this instant
the vertical and horizontal settings are locked and just beep when I try to
change them. I will download the earlier one that you mention and try
that.

Keith W
 
Keith said:
I tried Powerstrip, which has worked for me on other PCs but in this instant
the vertical and horizontal settings are locked and just beep when I try to
change them. I will download the earlier one that you mention and try
that.
Click to expand...

Ok, for what it's worth, I have a Windows 98 SE system around here that
has an 8MB ATI 3D Rage Pro AGP in it, and I've hooked it up to a
1440x900 LCD monitor.

1) Windows 98 does not offer the native resolution for selection.

2) Powerstrip 2.78 complains that what I want to do is
"not supported" when I try to set the resolution

3) Powerstrip 3.78 allows me to add a custom resolution
without complaint, but bitches on restart. The new
resolution has not been added.

4) Xubuntu 7.10 can display 1440x900 with no problems.
 
Grinder said:
Ok, for what it's worth, I have a Windows 98 SE system around here that
has an 8MB ATI 3D Rage Pro AGP in it, and I've hooked it up to a
1440x900 LCD monitor.

1) Windows 98 does not offer the native resolution for selection.

2) Powerstrip 2.78 complains that what I want to do is
"not supported" when I try to set the resolution

3) Powerstrip 3.78 allows me to add a custom resolution
without complaint, but bitches on restart. The new
resolution has not been added.

4) Xubuntu 7.10 can display 1440x900 with no problems.
Click to expand...

I don't think this is important, but what color depth is being used ?

X Windows is flexible, and I spent more of my life staring at an
8 bit color depth, than any other. Maybe your Xubuntu test case
is not in 32 bit color depth, but one of the lesser options ?

Some of the old video cards, offered their top resolutions in
a reduced color depth.

Paul
 
Grinder said:
Ok, for what it's worth, I have a Windows 98 SE system around here that
has an 8MB ATI 3D Rage Pro AGP in it, and I've hooked it up to a 1440x900
LCD monitor.

1) Windows 98 does not offer the native resolution for selection.

2) Powerstrip 2.78 complains that what I want to do is
"not supported" when I try to set the resolution

3) Powerstrip 3.78 allows me to add a custom resolution
without complaint, but bitches on restart. The new
resolution has not been added.

4) Xubuntu 7.10 can display 1440x900 with no problems.
Click to expand...

My mobo is an Intel 810 with the clever arrangement of onbard AGP graphics
but no AGP slot, hence the Rage is PCI. I have now removed the Rage and
reverted to the onbard graphics with the latest Intel driver and I have
achieved 1280x960 which is at least nearer to what I want and has eliminated
the wavy lines that I was experiencing. Xubuntu didn't even notice the
change and still gives me the correct 1440x900.
 
Paul said:
I don't think this is important, but what color depth is being used ?

X Windows is flexible, and I spent more of my life staring at an
8 bit color depth, than any other. Maybe your Xubuntu test case
is not in 32 bit color depth, but one of the lesser options ?

Some of the old video cards, offered their top resolutions in
a reduced color depth.
Click to expand...

I don't know what colour depth the Linux is giving although it looks fine.
However, I have tried reducing the colour depth in Win XP and it makes not a
ha'peth of difference.
 
Paul said:
I don't think this is important, but what color depth is being used ?

X Windows is flexible, and I spent more of my life staring at an
8 bit color depth, than any other. Maybe your Xubuntu test case
is not in 32 bit color depth, but one of the lesser options ?

Some of the old video cards, offered their top resolutions in
a reduced color depth.
Click to expand...

I think there's enough memory to go around. I'm not certain of this,
but I've noticed on several occasions that you can predict resolution
and bit depths from a simple calculation:

For a 1MB video card:

640 x 480 x 3 Bpp (24 bpp) = 921600 B <= 1MB
800 x 600 x 2 Bpp (16 bpp) = 960000 B <= 1MB
1024 x 768 x 1 Bpp (8 bpp) = 786432 B <= 1MB
1152 x 864 x 1 Bpp (8 bpp) = 995328 B <= 1MB

I don't recall that 4-bit color can count as 0.5 Bpp.

By the time you get to 8MB you've got enough to run 1600 x 1200 x 32
bpp. It seems almost to simplistic to be true, but I've yet to see the
rule violated.

In this situation, we're both using ATI 3D Rage Pros, which run a
minimum of 8MB.

1440 x 900 x 4 Bpp (32 bpp) = 5184000 B <= 8MB
 
Back
Top