Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

16:9 and Sony GDM-FW900

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
March 5, 2005 1:45:07 PM

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.

More about : sony gdm fw900

Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2005 1:45:08 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2005 3:34:17 PM

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&gt;



--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
March 5, 2005 6:19:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 0cs5j02ljd@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&gt;
>
>
>
> --
> --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?
March 5, 2005 8:03:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.video (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 0cs5j02ljd@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&gt;
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --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?
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2005 8:10:12 PM

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.
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 5, 2005 9:23:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

Tony wrote:

>
> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
> news:D 0cs5j02ljd@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&gt;
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> --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&h...;,
with a couple of not very elegant solutions.

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
March 5, 2005 11:16:10 PM

Archived from groups: alt.comp.periphs.videocards.ati (More info?)

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
news:D 0dfgu022s2@news3.newsguy.com...
> Tony wrote:
>
>>
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@snet.net.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:D 0cs5j02ljd@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&gt;
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> --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&h...;,
> 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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2005 1:24:49 AM

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
March 6, 2005 1:24:50 AM

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=55...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2005 1:24:50 AM

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)
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2005 4:16:25 AM

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
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2005 5:41:46 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2005 5:41:47 AM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
March 6, 2005 12:53:14 PM

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)
!