Archived from groups: alt.comp.hardware.homebuilt,alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt (
More info?)
JAD wrote:
> "David Maynard" <nospam@private.net> wrote in message
> news:11egd2f1uv21k67@corp.supernews.com...
>
>>That isn't correct. The card is capable of 640x480 at any supported color
>>depth. It's XP that defaults to 800x600 minimum (and has that as the
>>'minimum' on the slider bar) but even that is not a 'hard' limit and can
>>be changed. Enable VGA mode, which is not 'safe mode'. It's VGA mode, in
>>living color, just like every Windows version prior to XP supported. And
>>so does XP, albeit a bit grudgingly.
>>
>
>
> Yes saying it was 'not' using it was not the proper terminology, its lamed
> (seriously if its a decent card)although I know that even when you get a
> screen size to work, you try to raise the color depth and wham!, screen goes
> dark, black, and/or distorted. so you end up with not only 640x480 you get
> 256 or less color.
I don't know what you're referring to here with the 'wham'. Color depth
should have no effect on refresh rate.
> Then there is the minimum refresh rate the adapter can
> be adjusted to via the driver.
Yes, and that's the problem I mentioned with old monitors that support
800x600, or 1024x768, but only with below 60Hz refresh rates. Modern cards
often don't support those. But they all support "VGA" 640x480 60Hz.
> My 7500 AIW will get to the point where the
> LCD will work great. However the 128 rage AIW won't. Now you say that there
> is no 'refresh' rate for LCD's. Yes this is true of today's models, however
> this one does, and because I do not 'major' in LCDs, I cannot give the
> reason,
> but that's irrelevant any way. its an example of a low resolution monitor
> in analog mode and an adapter that will not work no matter the
> driver/setting. even in safe mode.
It's also an LCD and not a CRT. Plus, the poster already stated his
operates 640x480 because safe mode worked.
>>The card works at 640x480, the driver works at 640x480, and the monitor
>>works at 640x480. It's just that XP wants you to use 800x600, or higher,
>>so when you boot up 'normally' stubborn XP will set it no lower than it's
>>'recommended' 800x600 minimum resolution and you get a garbled display.
>
>
> Hmmm I do not have that problem with XP home.....however is this caused
> when you have all the bells and whistles enabled? I have a 640x480 setting
> in display properties currently....But I do remember NOT having it in the
> original setup/install.
Well, then, I'd say you changed something since the original setup/install
that enabled it.
However, that you have 640 on the slider is proof that XP can do it even
though the 'official' MS literature says SVGA 800x600 is 'required'.
>>Whether one wants to use XP in 640x480 mode is another matter but it's no
>>different than using Windows 2000 or Windows98 in 640x480 mode.
>
>
> That's what I was saying ---usable,
It's just as usable as any other Windows version was with 640x480.
> And even though you can get 640x480 most
> of the menu windows and cascades go off the screen either at the top or the
> bottom.
No, but the fat oversized menu bars take up more screen space so there's
less for 'useful' things but you can simply set the display 'appearance'
properties "windows and buttons" to 'standard' rather than 'XP'. Although I
notice they seem to have grayed that out with SP2 so you now have to go
into System Properties, Advanced, Performance Options, Visual Effects and
UNcheck "Use visual styles."
At any rate, XP can be easily made to look just like Win2000/Win9x, like
when that old monitor was 'new'.
>>>This
>>>is a very common scenario when using old monitors (even some older LCD's)
>>>with newer adapters. Sometimes you can get a setting that works but the
>>>screen is not centered at any resolution, or the picture rolls , This is
>>>unacceptable for me, maybe you run your machine in safe mode all the time
>>>and have no problem squinting at your screen, not me.
>>
>>There can certainly be a conflict between supported refresh rates, such as
>>an old monitor supporting 800x600 but only 86/43Hz interlaced with a
>>display card that only does non-interlaced 60Hz minimum, but the one that
>>should always work is 640x480 60Hz.
>
>
> That's why 'safe mode' uses it.
>
> at 16 bit or 256 color, and that sux for windows,
"Safe mode" is merely proof that 640x480 60Hz works in both the monitor and
the display card but that has nothing to do with the color depth under
normal operation when you set the screen to 640x480, and you can run 8, 16,
24 or 32 color depth, or whatever you like, as long as your card supports
that depth. And if it supports a particular color depth at 800x600 it'll
support it at 640x480.
> and that's really where I
> was going. Weird non standard hor-vert refresh rates
Except that 60Hz isn't a weird refresh rate and every 14 inch VGA monitor
supports it.
>....Packard bell 1500c
> comes to mind.
Sorry, I don't know what a Packard bell 1500c is so I can't say what kind
of problem it might have had, or why.
> Some adapters just don't have the capability. Allot of 14 in
> monitors of legacy design have this problem.
They ALL support VGA mode as they're VGA monitors and I could pull out the
original first VGA I ever got with my whiz bang 286/16Mhz machine, as I
still have both, and run it, the monitor not the 286 <chuckle>, with XP if
I had a mind to.
I still use them for 'special purpose' machines, like taking an old system
and using it as a software 'scope/signal generator so I won't mind so much
if something goes wrong and the tube amp I'm working on zaps 300 volts
through the lot.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram