16:9 and Sony GDM-FW900

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We just
dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint Sony
widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering why I
can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the 9600 support
this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I suspected
that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried 1920x1080
(true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely into the
viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center 40% of my
desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of like what
happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The problem was I
couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.

So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
possible) configuration to work with this setup?

I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
14 answers Last reply
More about sony fw900
  1. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    This is a question you need to explore on the ATI site.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    news:4KKdndDFD9ZgTrTfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
    >I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We just
    >dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint Sony
    >widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering why I
    >can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the 9600
    >support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I
    >suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    >1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely
    >into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center 40%
    >of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of like what
    >happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The problem was I
    >couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >
    > So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    > possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >
    > I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
    >
  2. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Tony wrote:

    > I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We
    > just dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint
    > Sony widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering
    > why I can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the 9600
    > support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I
    > suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    > 1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely
    > into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center
    > 40% of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of like
    > what happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The problem
    > was I couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >
    > So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    > possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >
    > I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.

    <http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm>


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  3. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:d0cs5j02ljd@news1.newsguy.com...
    > Tony wrote:
    >
    >> I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We
    >> just dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint
    >> Sony widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering
    >> why I can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the
    >> 9600
    >> support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I
    >> suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    >> 1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely
    >> into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center
    >> 40% of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of
    >> like
    >> what happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The
    >> problem
    >> was I couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >>
    >> So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    >> possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >>
    >> I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
    >
    > <http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm>
    >
    >
    >
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    Thanks John. I installed it. It will certainly give me 1600x1024 (very
    nice), but when I select that resolution it does the same thing as when I
    select 1920x1080 - it fill a 4:3 sized center portion of the display with
    about 40% of my desktop. Any further help you can give would be most
    appreciated.

    Let me add that after I "activated" the 1600x1024 capability I made the
    resolution change using Display Properties. Is that not the right way to do
    it with PowerStrip installed?
  4. Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:d0cs5j02ljd@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> Tony wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We
    >>> just dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint
    >>> Sony widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering
    >>> why I can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the
    >>> 9600
    >>> support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I
    >>> suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    >>> 1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely
    >>> into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center
    >>> 40% of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of
    >>> like
    >>> what happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The
    >>> problem
    >>> was I couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >>>
    >>> So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    >>> possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >>>
    >>> I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
    >>
    >> <http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> --John
    >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    Thanks John. I installed it. It will certainly give me 1600x1024 (very
    nice), but when I select that resolution it does the same thing as when I
    select 1920x1080 - it fill a 4:3 sized center portion of the display with
    about 40% of my desktop. Any further help you can give would be most
    appreciated.

    Let me add that after I "activated" the 1600x1024 capability I made the
    resolution change using Display Properties. Is that not the right way to do
    it with PowerStrip installed?
  5. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Hi, to get the correct resolution you will require the video card drivers
    from Sony and/or the monitor inf. ATI do not provide drivers directly for
    mobile graphics...
    ChrisC
    "Colin Barnhorst" <colinbarharst(nojunk)@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:e1RBxEaIFHA.2620@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
    > This is a question you need to explore on the ATI site.
    >
    > --
    > Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    > (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    > "Tony" <none@none.com> wrote in message
    > news:4KKdndDFD9ZgTrTfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
    >>I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We
    >>just dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint
    >>Sony widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering
    >>why I can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the 9600
    >>support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I
    >>suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    >>1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely
    >>into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center
    >>40% of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of like
    >>what happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The problem
    >>was I couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >>
    >> So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    >> possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >>
    >> I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
    >>
    >
    >
  6. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Tony wrote:

    >
    > "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:d0cs5j02ljd@news1.newsguy.com...
    >> Tony wrote:
    >>
    >>> I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We
    >>> just dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint
    >>> Sony widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering
    >>> why I can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the
    >>> 9600
    >>> support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP? I
    >>> suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    >>> 1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map entirely
    >>> into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center
    >>> 40% of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of
    >>> like
    >>> what happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The
    >>> problem
    >>> was I couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >>>
    >>> So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    >>> possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >>>
    >>> I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
    >>
    >> <http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> --
    >> --John
    >> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    >
    > Thanks John. I installed it. It will certainly give me 1600x1024 (very
    > nice), but when I select that resolution it does the same thing as when I
    > select 1920x1080 - it fill a 4:3 sized center portion of the display with
    > about 40% of my desktop. Any further help you can give would be most
    > appreciated.
    >
    > Let me add that after I "activated" the 1600x1024 capability I made the
    > resolution change using Display Properties. Is that not the right way to
    > do it with PowerStrip installed?

    I researched this a little more and found out that it's an ATI-specific
    problem. There's a short thread about it on Rage3d,
    <http://www.rage3d.org/board/showthread.php?t=33693264&highlight=fw-900>,
    with a couple of not very elegant solutions.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  7. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:d0dfgu022s2@news3.newsguy.com...
    > Tony wrote:
    >
    >>
    >> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
    >> news:d0cs5j02ljd@news1.newsguy.com...
    >>> Tony wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> I have an ATI 9600 running under XP Pro. Using the 6.14.10 drivers. We
    >>>> just dispositioned a lot of gear at work, and I got my hands on a mint
    >>>> Sony widescreen FW900. I set it up okay at 1600x1200, but I'm wondering
    >>>> why I can't set it up at 1600x1024 (which the Sony supports). Can the
    >>>> 9600
    >>>> support this resolution, but for some reason it's not available in XP?
    >>>> I
    >>>> suspected that maybe the 9600 just didn't support 1600x1024, so I tried
    >>>> 1920x1080 (true 16x9), and I got a display that I could not map
    >>>> entirely
    >>>> into the viewable area. That is, it looked like it just took the center
    >>>> 40% of my desktop and mapped it to the viewable display area, kind of
    >>>> like
    >>>> what happens when you have a desktop across multiple displays. The
    >>>> problem
    >>>> was I couldn't get either side back onto the FW900.
    >>>>
    >>>> So my basic question is how do I get a 16:9 (or 1600x1024 if that's
    >>>> possible) configuration to work with this setup?
    >>>>
    >>>> I installed the FW900 XP inf drivers, BTW.
    >>>
    >>> <http://entechtaiwan.net/util/ps.shtm>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> --John
    >>> to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    >>> (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
    >>
    >> Thanks John. I installed it. It will certainly give me 1600x1024 (very
    >> nice), but when I select that resolution it does the same thing as when I
    >> select 1920x1080 - it fill a 4:3 sized center portion of the display with
    >> about 40% of my desktop. Any further help you can give would be most
    >> appreciated.
    >>
    >> Let me add that after I "activated" the 1600x1024 capability I made the
    >> resolution change using Display Properties. Is that not the right way to
    >> do it with PowerStrip installed?
    >
    > I researched this a little more and found out that it's an ATI-specific
    > problem. There's a short thread about it on Rage3d,
    > <http://www.rage3d.org/board/showthread.php?t=33693264&highlight=fw-900>,
    > with a couple of not very elegant solutions.
    >
    > --
    > --John
    > to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    > (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

    Thanks again, John. It seems like one person with a UK email indicated he
    had the timings. Seems a little odd that he didn't post them for all to see.
  8. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    You are attempting to use other than 4x3 resolutions on your crt. Won't work, as you can
    see. The best you would ever be able to come up with would be letter-boxing of the screen.

    Stick with true 4x3 resolutions and you'll be ok. Even 1280x1024 is NOT a true 4x3
    setting, it is 4x5.

    Why do you want these wide-screen resolutions? Watching 16x9 DVDs?
    --
    Todd
  9. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    "Todd Sauve" <tsauve@shaw.ca> wrote in message
    news:RkqWd.578480$Xk.346502@pd7tw3no...
    > You are attempting to use other than 4x3 resolutions on your crt. Won't
    > work, as you can see. The best you would ever be able to come up with
    > would be letter-boxing of the screen.
    >
    > Stick with true 4x3 resolutions and you'll be ok. Even 1280x1024 is NOT a
    > true 4x3 setting, it is 4x5.
    >
    > Why do you want these wide-screen resolutions? Watching 16x9 DVDs?
    > --
    > Todd
    >

    The FW900 is a true widescreen display.

    http://displaysbysony.com/display/model.jsp?pModelId=559
  10. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Todd Sauve wrote:

    > You are attempting to use other than 4x3 resolutions on your crt. Won't
    > work, as you can see. The best you would ever be able to come up with
    > would be letter-boxing of the screen.
    >
    > Stick with true 4x3 resolutions and you'll be ok. Even 1280x1024 is NOT a
    > true 4x3 setting, it is 4x5.

    Actually it's 5:4.

    Now why would he want to use 5:4 on a monitor whose aspect ratio is closer
    to 16:9?????

    Perhaps it has escaped your notice that all CRTs are not 4:3.

    > Why do you want these wide-screen resolutions? Watching 16x9 DVDs?

    Maybe displaying two pages side by side full size like Sony shows in their
    ads?


    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
  11. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

    Yes, there are a handfull of 16x9 aspect CRTs. Perhaps that is what this Sony is, eh?

    If this is the case then it is my mistake :(
    --
    Todd
  12. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Chris Catt wrote:
    > Hi, to get the correct resolution you will require the video card
    > drivers from Sony and/or the monitor inf. ATI do not provide drivers
    > directly for mobile graphics...
    > ChrisC

    Oh look - another top posting idiot! You didn't read the OP's question at
    all, did you?! WTF did he say he was using a laptop?! The FW900 is a
    *MONITOR*! Why on earth Sony would offer drivers for a ATI graphics card
    I've absolutely no idea. You do not require the monitor file.

    --
    Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
    on salads.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Also, I have never seen a 9600 card that small.

    --
    Colin Barnhorst [MVP Windows - Virtual Machine]
    (Reply to the group only unless otherwise requested)
    "Miss Perspicacia Tick" <noone@here.com> wrote in message
    news:T5uWd.321$oA7.218@fe06.highwinds-media.phx...
    > Chris Catt wrote:
    >> Hi, to get the correct resolution you will require the video card
    >> drivers from Sony and/or the monitor inf. ATI do not provide drivers
    >> directly for mobile graphics...
    >> ChrisC
    >
    > Oh look - another top posting idiot! You didn't read the OP's question at
    > all, did you?! WTF did he say he was using a laptop?! The FW900 is a
    > *MONITOR*! Why on earth Sony would offer drivers for a ATI graphics card
    > I've absolutely no idea. You do not require the monitor file.
    >
    > --
    > Facon - the artificial bacon bits you get in Pizza Hut for sprinkling
    > on salads.
    >
  14. Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video,microsoft.public.windowsxp.basics,microsoft.public.windowsxp.hardware (More info?)

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:

    > Also, I have never seen a 9600 card that small.

    Huh? Not a "card" but many laptops have Radeon 9600s.

    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Ask a new question

Read More

Graphics Cards Sony Graphics