Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Are monitor drivers necessary? Buying new monitor for Wind..

Last response: in Windows 95/98/ME
Share
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 1:23:49 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.

The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?

I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.

Thanks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 2:14:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Monitor drivers also let the system (video card) know the maximum settings
the monitor can handle. Default drivers will likely protect it from being
overdriven but may not allow higher refresh rates that the monitor is
capable of handling. Higher refresh rates get rid of flicker although most
people can't see flicker above 72Hz. The downside is only if you wish to
use these higher settings.

<DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
> The
> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>
> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to
> be a
> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
> them?
>
> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
> (MT901E)
> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>
> Thanks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 2:36:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:14:46 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote:

>Monitor drivers also let the system (video card) know the maximum settings
>the monitor can handle. Default drivers will likely protect it from being
>overdriven but may not allow higher refresh rates that the monitor is
>capable of handling. Higher refresh rates get rid of flicker although most
>people can't see flicker above 72Hz. The downside is only if you wish to
>use these higher settings.


I looked in the Device Manager and it says no drivers were loaded for the monitor.
I'm not getting any flicker that I can see. The refresh rate is set for Optimal but it
doesn't say what it is. It has two other options, 60 and 75 Hz. I guess I should be okay
then. The monitort I have now is aperture grille and the new one will be shadow mask,
(can't find aperture grilles anymore). I don't know it that will matter. Thanks for the
information. :-)


>
><DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
>news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
>> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
>> The
>> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>
>> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to
>> be a
>> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>> them?
>>
>> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
>> (MT901E)
>> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
Related resources
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 3:48:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

AG monitors used to only be available with Sony Trinitron or Mitsubishi
Diamondtron tubes. I haven't kept up on them for a while now so I don't
know if there are other manufacturers now. I've always preferred the AG
design. Many people don't like the light horizontal lines typical with AG
designs. As far as flicker and refresh rate are concerned, it shouldn't
matter what technology your tube has. There are some very nice shadow mask
tubes. This link has more info on AG:

http://www.mitsubishi-electric.com.au/PRODUCTS/COMPP/MO...

There's a Windows utility called Flimmer.exe that measures refresh rate.
It's not written in English but it's obvious when it displays your refresh
rate. I looked for it on the internet but didn't immediately find it. It's
a very small application, 28KB, so if you want me to send it to you, email
me. It should be obvious how to de-spam my address.

<DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
news:D tii71hc42anbl2qurcrf24gqa29cprkcu@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:14:46 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Monitor drivers also let the system (video card) know the maximum settings
>>the monitor can handle. Default drivers will likely protect it from being
>>overdriven but may not allow higher refresh rates that the monitor is
>>capable of handling. Higher refresh rates get rid of flicker although
>>most
>>people can't see flicker above 72Hz. The downside is only if you wish to
>>use these higher settings.
>
>
> I looked in the Device Manager and it says no drivers were loaded for the
> monitor.
> I'm not getting any flicker that I can see. The refresh rate is set for
> Optimal but it
> doesn't say what it is. It has two other options, 60 and 75 Hz. I guess I
> should be okay
> then. The monitort I have now is aperture grille and the new one will be
> shadow mask,
> (can't find aperture grilles anymore). I don't know it that will matter.
> Thanks for the
> information. :-)
>
>
>>
>><DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
>>news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
>>> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
>>> The
>>> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>
>>> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going
>>> to
>>> be a
>>> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>>> them?
>>>
>>> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
>>> (MT901E)
>>> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came
>>> with
>>> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 5:19:24 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.

A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable module) tells
the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate
which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines power-saving
options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less than 5
years old.

I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz refresh. I often
set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their own
computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe monitor
drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers

On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:

>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>
>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?
>
>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>
>Thanks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 5:52:57 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Found a site with Flimmer.

ftp://ftp.wiwi.uni-marburg.de/pub/wimm/tools/flimmer.ex...


"mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote in message
news:Uadee.16589$Au1.5270@tornado.socal.rr.com...
> AG monitors used to only be available with Sony Trinitron or Mitsubishi
> Diamondtron tubes. I haven't kept up on them for a while now so I don't
> know if there are other manufacturers now. I've always preferred the AG
> design. Many people don't like the light horizontal lines typical with AG
> designs. As far as flicker and refresh rate are concerned, it shouldn't
> matter what technology your tube has. There are some very nice shadow
> mask tubes. This link has more info on AG:
>
> http://www.mitsubishi-electric.com.au/PRODUCTS/COMPP/MO...
>
> There's a Windows utility called Flimmer.exe that measures refresh rate.
> It's not written in English but it's obvious when it displays your refresh
> rate. I looked for it on the internet but didn't immediately find it.
> It's a very small application, 28KB, so if you want me to send it to you,
> email me. It should be obvious how to de-spam my address.
>
> <DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
> news:D tii71hc42anbl2qurcrf24gqa29cprkcu@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:14:46 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Monitor drivers also let the system (video card) know the maximum
>>>settings
>>>the monitor can handle. Default drivers will likely protect it from
>>>being
>>>overdriven but may not allow higher refresh rates that the monitor is
>>>capable of handling. Higher refresh rates get rid of flicker although
>>>most
>>>people can't see flicker above 72Hz. The downside is only if you wish to
>>>use these higher settings.
>>
>>
>> I looked in the Device Manager and it says no drivers were loaded for the
>> monitor.
>> I'm not getting any flicker that I can see. The refresh rate is set for
>> Optimal but it
>> doesn't say what it is. It has two other options, 60 and 75 Hz. I guess I
>> should be okay
>> then. The monitort I have now is aperture grille and the new one will be
>> shadow mask,
>> (can't find aperture grilles anymore). I don't know it that will matter.
>> Thanks for the
>> information. :-)
>>
>>
>>>
>>><DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
>>>news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
>>>> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an
>>>> HP-mx705.
>>>> The
>>>> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>
>>>> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going
>>>> to
>>>> be a
>>>> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
>>>> (MT901E)
>>>> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came
>>>> with
>>>> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 6:42:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Wed, 04 May 2005 23:48:04 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote:

>AG monitors used to only be available with Sony Trinitron or Mitsubishi
>Diamondtron tubes. I haven't kept up on them for a while now so I don't
>know if there are other manufacturers now. I've always preferred the AG
>design. Many people don't like the light horizontal lines typical with AG
>designs.

It's a small price for a much better picture.

> As far as flicker and refresh rate are concerned, it shouldn't
>matter what technology your tube has.

That's good.

> There are some very nice shadow mask
>tubes. This link has more info on AG:
>
>http://www.mitsubishi-electric.com.au/PRODUCTS/COMPP/MO...

When I was still looking for an AG monitor (yesterday) I found three models from NEC,
Mitusbishi and Viewsonic, two 17" and a 19". They still have them on their sites,
unfortunately I don't see them for sale anywhere except for maybe a refurb so they must
have stopped making them. It's a shame because the AG models were nice. All the shadow
mask monitors I've looked at in stores have been garbage by comparison.

>There's a Windows utility called Flimmer.exe that measures refresh rate.
>It's not written in English but it's obvious when it displays your refresh
>rate. I looked for it on the internet but didn't immediately find it. It's
>a very small application, 28KB, so if you want me to send it to you, email
>me. It should be obvious how to de-spam my address.

Thanks. I'll find it on the internet.

>
><DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
>news:D tii71hc42anbl2qurcrf24gqa29cprkcu@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:14:46 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Monitor drivers also let the system (video card) know the maximum settings
>>>the monitor can handle. Default drivers will likely protect it from being
>>>overdriven but may not allow higher refresh rates that the monitor is
>>>capable of handling. Higher refresh rates get rid of flicker although
>>>most
>>>people can't see flicker above 72Hz. The downside is only if you wish to
>>>use these higher settings.
>>
>>
>> I looked in the Device Manager and it says no drivers were loaded for the
>> monitor.
>> I'm not getting any flicker that I can see. The refresh rate is set for
>> Optimal but it
>> doesn't say what it is. It has two other options, 60 and 75 Hz. I guess I
>> should be okay
>> then. The monitort I have now is aperture grille and the new one will be
>> shadow mask,
>> (can't find aperture grilles anymore). I don't know it that will matter.
>> Thanks for the
>> information. :-)
>>
>>
>>>
>>><DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
>>>news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
>>>> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
>>>> The
>>>> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>
>>>> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going
>>>> to
>>>> be a
>>>> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>>>> them?
>>>>
>>>> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
>>>> (MT901E)
>>>> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came
>>>> with
>>>> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks.
>>>
>>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 6:43:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:52:57 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote:

>Found a site with Flimmer.
>
>ftp://ftp.wiwi.uni-marburg.de/pub/wimm/tools/flimmer.ex...
>

Thank you.

>
>"mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote in message
>news:Uadee.16589$Au1.5270@tornado.socal.rr.com...
>> AG monitors used to only be available with Sony Trinitron or Mitsubishi
>> Diamondtron tubes. I haven't kept up on them for a while now so I don't
>> know if there are other manufacturers now. I've always preferred the AG
>> design. Many people don't like the light horizontal lines typical with AG
>> designs. As far as flicker and refresh rate are concerned, it shouldn't
>> matter what technology your tube has. There are some very nice shadow
>> mask tubes. This link has more info on AG:
>>
>> http://www.mitsubishi-electric.com.au/PRODUCTS/COMPP/MO...
>>
>> There's a Windows utility called Flimmer.exe that measures refresh rate.
>> It's not written in English but it's obvious when it displays your refresh
>> rate. I looked for it on the internet but didn't immediately find it.
>> It's a very small application, 28KB, so if you want me to send it to you,
>> email me. It should be obvious how to de-spam my address.
>>
>> <DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
>> news:D tii71hc42anbl2qurcrf24gqa29cprkcu@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 04 May 2005 22:14:46 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Monitor drivers also let the system (video card) know the maximum
>>>>settings
>>>>the monitor can handle. Default drivers will likely protect it from
>>>>being
>>>>overdriven but may not allow higher refresh rates that the monitor is
>>>>capable of handling. Higher refresh rates get rid of flicker although
>>>>most
>>>>people can't see flicker above 72Hz. The downside is only if you wish to
>>>>use these higher settings.
>>>
>>>
>>> I looked in the Device Manager and it says no drivers were loaded for the
>>> monitor.
>>> I'm not getting any flicker that I can see. The refresh rate is set for
>>> Optimal but it
>>> doesn't say what it is. It has two other options, 60 and 75 Hz. I guess I
>>> should be okay
>>> then. The monitort I have now is aperture grille and the new one will be
>>> shadow mask,
>>> (can't find aperture grilles anymore). I don't know it that will matter.
>>> Thanks for the
>>> information. :-)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>><DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
>>>>news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
>>>>> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an
>>>>> HP-mx705.
>>>>> The
>>>>> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>>
>>>>> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going
>>>>> to
>>>>> be a
>>>>> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>>>>> them?
>>>>>
>>>>> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
>>>>> (MT901E)
>>>>> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came
>>>>> with
>>>>> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks.
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 6:45:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:

>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>
>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable module) tells
>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate
>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines power-saving
>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less than 5
>years old.
>
>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz refresh. I often
>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their own
>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe monitor
>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers

Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or monitor drivers so I'm
hoping the replacement will too.

>
>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>
>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>
>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?
>>
>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>
>>Thanks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 12:03:14 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Probably not. The monitor drivers define the power management features and
not much else. The default drivers should work fine.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
> The
> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>
> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to
> be a
> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
> them?
>
> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
> (MT901E)
> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>
> Thanks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 12:03:15 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Thu, 5 May 2005 08:03:14 +1000, "Jeff Richards" <JRichards@msn.com.au> wrote:

>Probably not. The monitor drivers define the power management features and
>not much else. The default drivers should work fine.

Thank you.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 5, 2005 4:14:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

If there are no special drivers for the monitor you buy, make sure you know what
its specs are. Then adjust the refresh rate to the highest number for the
resolution you have chosen... Ben Myers

On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:45:32 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:

>On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>>
>>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable module) tells
>>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate
>>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines power-saving
>>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less than 5
>>years old.
>>
>>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz refresh. I often
>>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their own
>>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe monitor
>>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers
>
>Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or monitor drivers so I'm
>hoping the replacement will too.
>
>>
>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>>
>>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
>>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>
>>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
>>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?
>>>
>>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
>>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>
>>>Thanks.
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 6, 2005 5:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:14:04 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:

>If there are no special drivers for the monitor you buy, make sure you know what
>its specs are. Then adjust the refresh rate to the highest number for the
>resolution you have chosen... Ben Myers

Thanks. That sounds like good advice. Can I choose the highest refresh rate without
hurting the graphics card? Windows is giving me the option of up to 85Hz. at 600x800. With
my last monitor it only gave me the choices Optimal, 60 and 75Hz. Actually I think I'll
pick 75 Hz if it won't hurt the graphics card. I dont' find specs for it. It's an old one,
Dell OEM STB Riva 128, 4 MB. ;-)

The specs for my monitor say it will handle 75 and 85Hz at 600 x 800 which I guess is the
resolution I want for a 17" monitor.

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_deta...


>
>On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:45:32 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>>
>>>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>>>
>>>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable module) tells
>>>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate
>>>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines power-saving
>>>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less than 5
>>>years old.
>>>
>>>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz refresh. I often
>>>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their own
>>>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe monitor
>>>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers
>>
>>Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or monitor drivers so I'm
>>hoping the replacement will too.
>>
>>>
>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>>>
>>>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
>>>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>
>>>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
>>>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?
>>>>
>>>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
>>>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>>>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks.
>>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 6, 2005 8:51:15 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

The only potential for damage here is if the monitor is run at a frequency
higher than its design specs. You won't hurt the graphics card. Windows tells
you the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate based on the
capabilities built into the card and the monitor. Together.

800 x 600 on a 17" monitor is fine for my eyes. Some people like 1024 x 768...
Ben Myers

On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:46:27 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:

>On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:14:04 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>If there are no special drivers for the monitor you buy, make sure you know what
>>its specs are. Then adjust the refresh rate to the highest number for the
>>resolution you have chosen... Ben Myers
>
>Thanks. That sounds like good advice. Can I choose the highest refresh rate without
>hurting the graphics card? Windows is giving me the option of up to 85Hz. at 600x800. With
>my last monitor it only gave me the choices Optimal, 60 and 75Hz. Actually I think I'll
>pick 75 Hz if it won't hurt the graphics card. I dont' find specs for it. It's an old one,
>Dell OEM STB Riva 128, 4 MB. ;-)
>
>The specs for my monitor say it will handle 75 and 85Hz at 600 x 800 which I guess is the
>resolution I want for a 17" monitor.
>
>http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_deta...
>
>
>>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:45:32 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>>>>
>>>>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable module) tells
>>>>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate
>>>>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines power-saving
>>>>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less than 5
>>>>years old.
>>>>
>>>>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz refresh. I often
>>>>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their own
>>>>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe monitor
>>>>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers
>>>
>>>Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or monitor drivers so I'm
>>>hoping the replacement will too.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
>>>>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>>
>>>>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
>>>>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?
>>>>>
>>>>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
>>>>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>>>>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks.
>>>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 6, 2005 2:07:44 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:51:15 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:

>The only potential for damage here is if the monitor is run at a frequency
>higher than its design specs. You won't hurt the graphics card.

Thanks, that's good to know.

> Windows tells
>you the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate based on the
>capabilities built into the card and the monitor. Together.

Even with no monitor drivers? That must be true because I'm seeing 85Hz as an option and I
didn't have that option with my old monitor. The OS is Windows 95b.

>
>800 x 600 on a 17" monitor is fine for my eyes.

Me too. Text is a little too small if I go higher.

> Some people like 1024 x 768...
>Ben Myers
>
>On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:46:27 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:14:04 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>>
>>>If there are no special drivers for the monitor you buy, make sure you know what
>>>its specs are. Then adjust the refresh rate to the highest number for the
>>>resolution you have chosen... Ben Myers
>>
>>Thanks. That sounds like good advice. Can I choose the highest refresh rate without
>>hurting the graphics card? Windows is giving me the option of up to 85Hz. at 600x800. With
>>my last monitor it only gave me the choices Optimal, 60 and 75Hz. Actually I think I'll
>>pick 75 Hz if it won't hurt the graphics card. I dont' find specs for it. It's an old one,
>>Dell OEM STB Riva 128, 4 MB. ;-)
>>
>>The specs for my monitor say it will handle 75 and 85Hz at 600 x 800 which I guess is the
>>resolution I want for a 17" monitor.
>>
>>http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_deta...
>>
>>
>>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:45:32 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>>>>>
>>>>>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable module) tells
>>>>>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate
>>>>>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines power-saving
>>>>>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less than 5
>>>>>years old.
>>>>>
>>>>>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz refresh. I often
>>>>>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their own
>>>>>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe monitor
>>>>>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers
>>>>
>>>>Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or monitor drivers so I'm
>>>>hoping the replacement will too.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705. The
>>>>>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to be a
>>>>>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need them?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT (MT901E)
>>>>>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>>>>>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>
>>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 6, 2005 3:57:21 PM

Archived from groups: microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion (More info?)

The system should only be offering refresh rates that the video card can
generate. If you somehow manage to select an invalid rate the video card
will ignore it.
--
Jeff Richards
MS MVP (Windows - Shell/User)
<DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
news:35il71592dg92f15hlv0gl89tv0ibp9fhk@4ax.com...
> Osnip <
>
> Thanks. That sounds like good advice. Can I choose the highest refresh
> rate without
> hurting the graphics card? Windows is giving me the option of up to 85Hz.
> at 600x800. With
> my last monitor it only gave me the choices Optimal, 60 and 75Hz. Actually
> I think I'll
> pick 75 Hz if it won't hurt the graphics card. I dont' find specs for it.
> It's an old one,
> Dell OEM STB Riva 128, 4 MB. ;-)
>
> The specs for my monitor say it will handle 75 and 85Hz at 600 x 800 which
> I guess is the
> resolution I want for a 17" monitor.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 7, 2005 2:59:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

windows 95 is no longer necessary


<DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
> The
> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>
> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to
> be a
> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
> them?
>
> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
> (MT901E)
> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>
> Thanks.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 7, 2005 6:02:25 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

How fast you can ultimately go with your refresh rate will depend on your
resolution but with your monitor specs showing vertical frequency spec of
50-160 Hz, I'd say you probably have more head room beyond 85Hz at 800x600.
Note the modes it shows are preset modes. As long as your graphics card and
monitor can handle other combinations and you have that info in a driver
(INF) file, you are free to try different settings.


<DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
news:h8gm71947m46i0ij0js63i2ouvi6e610gl@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:51:15 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben
> Myers) wrote:
>
>>The only potential for damage here is if the monitor is run at a frequency
>>higher than its design specs. You won't hurt the graphics card.
>
> Thanks, that's good to know.
>
>> Windows tells
>>you the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate based on the
>>capabilities built into the card and the monitor. Together.
>
> Even with no monitor drivers? That must be true because I'm seeing 85Hz as
> an option and I
> didn't have that option with my old monitor. The OS is Windows 95b.
>
>>
>>800 x 600 on a 17" monitor is fine for my eyes.
>
> Me too. Text is a little too small if I go higher.
>
>> Some people like 1024 x 768...
>>Ben Myers
>>
>>On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:46:27 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:14:04 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>>>(Ben Myers) wrote:
>>>
>>>>If there are no special drivers for the monitor you buy, make sure you
>>>>know what
>>>>its specs are. Then adjust the refresh rate to the highest number for
>>>>the
>>>>resolution you have chosen... Ben Myers
>>>
>>>Thanks. That sounds like good advice. Can I choose the highest refresh
>>>rate without
>>>hurting the graphics card? Windows is giving me the option of up to 85Hz.
>>>at 600x800. With
>>>my last monitor it only gave me the choices Optimal, 60 and 75Hz.
>>>Actually I think I'll
>>>pick 75 Hz if it won't hurt the graphics card. I dont' find specs for it.
>>>It's an old one,
>>>Dell OEM STB Riva 128, 4 MB. ;-)
>>>
>>>The specs for my monitor say it will handle 75 and 85Hz at 600 x 800
>>>which I guess is the
>>>resolution I want for a 17" monitor.
>>>
>>>http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_deta...
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:45:32 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>>>>>(Ben Myers) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable
>>>>>>module) tells
>>>>>>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and
>>>>>>refresh rate
>>>>>>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines
>>>>>>power-saving
>>>>>>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less
>>>>>>than 5
>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz
>>>>>>refresh. I often
>>>>>>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their
>>>>>>own
>>>>>>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe
>>>>>>monitor
>>>>>>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers
>>>>>
>>>>>Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or
>>>>>monitor drivers so I'm
>>>>>hoping the replacement will too.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an
>>>>>>>HP-mx705. The
>>>>>>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this
>>>>>>>going to be a
>>>>>>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>>>>>>>them?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama
>>>>>>>CRT (MT901E)
>>>>>>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came
>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>
>>>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 7, 2005 10:11:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Fri, 6 May 2005 22:59:52 -0500, "NuTCrAcKeR" <nutcracker@internationalhacker.org>
wrote:

>windows 95 is no longer necessary

In a general sense I agree. :-) I'm not sure what you mean though.
Anyway I've found out that the drivers aren't needed for a CRT but for an LCD they may be
required.


>
>
><DaveJohnson12@nospam.> wrote in message
>news:mpei71thmm2tmvbk90o10so0r6uns091er@4ax.com...
>> I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an HP-mx705.
>> The
>> computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>
>> The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this going to
>> be a
>> problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>> them?
>>
>> I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama CRT
>> (MT901E)
>> so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came with
>> Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>
>> Thanks.
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 7, 2005 10:11:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:02:25 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote:

>How fast you can ultimately go with your refresh rate will depend on your
>resolution but with your monitor specs showing vertical frequency spec of
>50-160 Hz, I'd say you probably have more head room beyond 85Hz at 800x600.
>Note the modes it shows are preset modes. As long as your graphics card and
>monitor can handle other combinations and you have that info in a driver
>(INF) file, you are free to try different settings.

Thanks. I don't have the drivers for the monitor. There is a pdf file for my monitor that
says 85 Hz is the limit for 600x800 and it might be the limit for my old graphics card too
because it's not giving me the option of going higher.

>
>
><DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
>news:h8gm71947m46i0ij0js63i2ouvi6e610gl@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:51:15 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben
>> Myers) wrote:
>>
>>>The only potential for damage here is if the monitor is run at a frequency
>>>higher than its design specs. You won't hurt the graphics card.
>>
>> Thanks, that's good to know.
>>
>>> Windows tells
>>>you the possible combinations of resolution and refresh rate based on the
>>>capabilities built into the card and the monitor. Together.
>>
>> Even with no monitor drivers? That must be true because I'm seeing 85Hz as
>> an option and I
>> didn't have that option with my old monitor. The OS is Windows 95b.
>>
>>>
>>>800 x 600 on a 17" monitor is fine for my eyes.
>>
>> Me too. Text is a little too small if I go higher.
>>
>>> Some people like 1024 x 768...
>>>Ben Myers
>>>
>>>On Fri, 06 May 2005 01:46:27 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 12:14:04 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>>>>(Ben Myers) wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>If there are no special drivers for the monitor you buy, make sure you
>>>>>know what
>>>>>its specs are. Then adjust the refresh rate to the highest number for
>>>>>the
>>>>>resolution you have chosen... Ben Myers
>>>>
>>>>Thanks. That sounds like good advice. Can I choose the highest refresh
>>>>rate without
>>>>hurting the graphics card? Windows is giving me the option of up to 85Hz.
>>>>at 600x800. With
>>>>my last monitor it only gave me the choices Optimal, 60 and 75Hz.
>>>>Actually I think I'll
>>>>pick 75 Hz if it won't hurt the graphics card. I dont' find specs for it.
>>>>It's an old one,
>>>>Dell OEM STB Riva 128, 4 MB. ;-)
>>>>
>>>>The specs for my monitor say it will handle 75 and 85Hz at 600 x 800
>>>>which I guess is the
>>>>resolution I want for a 17" monitor.
>>>>
>>>>http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/shopping/product_deta...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 02:45:32 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Thu, 05 May 2005 01:19:24 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net
>>>>>>(Ben Myers) wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Monitor drivers are not necessary, but they can prove very useful.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>A monitor "driver" (really a text file, not a binary executable
>>>>>>>module) tells
>>>>>>>the system all about the possible combinations of resolution and
>>>>>>>refresh rate
>>>>>>>which can be sustained by the monitor. The driver also defines
>>>>>>>power-saving
>>>>>>>options, although these are pretty much standard on SVGA monitors less
>>>>>>>than 5
>>>>>>>years old.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I can easily see a monitor flickering if it is running at 60Hz
>>>>>>>refresh. I often
>>>>>>>set the refresh rate higher when my clients unwittingly set up their
>>>>>>>own
>>>>>>>computers. A higher refresh rate is easier on the eyes. So maybe
>>>>>>>monitor
>>>>>>>drivers are necessary after all, to save your eyes... Ben Myers
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Thanks. The one I'm about to replace is working without flicker or
>>>>>>monitor drivers so I'm
>>>>>>hoping the replacement will too.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On Wed, 04 May 2005 21:23:49 GMT, DaveJohnson12@nospam. wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I'm using Windows 95b. I'm planning to buy a new CRT, maybe an
>>>>>>>>HP-mx705. The
>>>>>>>>computer is a Dell PII 300 MHz Dimension.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>The HP monitor has drivers for Windows 98 and above only. Is this
>>>>>>>>going to be a
>>>>>>>>problem? What is the purpose of the monitor drivers? Do I really need
>>>>>>>>them?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>I never installed monitor drivers for my current monitor, an Iiyama
>>>>>>>>CRT (MT901E)
>>>>>>>>so I'm thinking either they aren't needed or the monitor drivers came
>>>>>>>>with
>>>>>>>>Windows 95 so I didn't have to install them from a disc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>Thanks.
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 8, 2005 1:35:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 06:11:47 GMT If I have seen farther it is because
I have stood on the shoulder of giants DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote :

>On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:02:25 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote:
>
>>How fast you can ultimately go with your refresh rate will depend on your
>>resolution but with your monitor specs showing vertical frequency spec of
>>50-160 Hz, I'd say you probably have more head room beyond 85Hz at 800x600.
>>Note the modes it shows are preset modes. As long as your graphics card and
>>monitor can handle other combinations and you have that info in a driver
>>(INF) file, you are free to try different settings.
>
>Thanks. I don't have the drivers for the monitor. There is a pdf file for my monitor that
>says 85 Hz is the limit for 600x800 and it might be the limit for my old graphics card too
>because it's not giving me the option of going higher.

I've found little or no use for anything above 75Hz on a CRT :) 



--
Free Windows/PC help,
http://www.geocities.com/sheppola/trouble.html
remove obvious to reply
email pds@OBVIOUSpartybombe.de
Free original songs to download and,"BURN" :o )
http://www.soundclick.com/bands/8/nomessiahsmusic.htm
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 9, 2005 4:18:48 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Sat, 07 May 2005 02:02:25 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com>

>How fast you can ultimately go with your refresh rate will depend on your
>resolution but with your monitor specs showing vertical frequency spec of
>50-160 Hz, I'd say you probably have more head room beyond 85Hz at 800x600.

It goes about dot rate, which is a combo of res plus refresh rate. A
14" that is not totally useless (i.e. not "name brand" or really
really old) will do something at least like...

1024 x 768 60Hz (flicker++)
800 x 600 70Hz or 72Hz
640 x 480 75Hz

....and you can force this by:
- calling your monitor a "brand" CTX, "model" 1451
- disabling PnP detection for monitors so it doesn't re-detect
- dsiabling power management in case yours isn't compatible

>Note the modes it shows are preset modes.

If you don't define a specific monitor in Win9x, you'd only be offered
"optimal" and "adapter default". To get explicit refresh rates, you
have to define a non-generic monitor, and I use CTX 1451 for 14". For
larger monitors, choose something that looks appropriate and then do
the rest of the steps so that it doesn't mis-suspend, and PnP doesn't
try to second-guess the settings you are trying to enforce.

>As long as your graphics card and monitor can handle other
>combinations and you have that info in a driver (INF) file, you
>are free to try different settings.

Use the workaround above to kill the "I have no .inf" issue. Note
that some really junk SVGA chipsets cannot control refresh rates at
all, and some SVGA cards' fluffware gets in the way by taking over
refresh rate management. Suspect the latter if:
- the rate selected isn't what seems to be in effect
- additional proprietary tabs are added to the Display dialog boxes

><DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
>> On Fri, 06 May 2005 04:51:15 GMT, (Ben )

>> Even with no monitor drivers?

Monitor "drivers" are really drivers at all, but are instead a bunch
of "how-to" settings in an .inf

>>>800 x 600 on a 17" monitor is fine for my eyes.

Most 17" can do this:

1024 x 768 at 72Hz or better
800 x 600 at 75Hz or better
640 x 480 at 85Hz or better

Good 17" can touch 1600 x 1200 at flickery 60Hz, and do 1280 x 1024 at
70Hz or better. Modern 17" monitors tend to fall short of this,
possibly to improve reliability (long warranties) and to protect 19"
turf; usually 1280 x 1024 is at a flickery 60Hz only, and 1600 x 1200
is not supported at all. Today's 19" do what the best of yesterday's
17" used to do, though sometimes 1600 x 1200 at 70Hz is possible.



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 10, 2005 8:10:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:09 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:

>Good point. I have encountered very few situations where the Windows 98 drivers
>will not work. In fact, I consider Windows 95A (the original. Ugh!), Windows
>95, Windows 95C, and Windows 98 First Edition to be beta-testing releases of
>Windows 98 Second Edition, when Microsoft got the DOS-kerneled Windows just
>about right... Ben Myers

The problem I'm having is with the color and brightness. I have the brightness set to zero
and colors are still washed out. People here have told me that the drivers will allow the
combinations of resolution and refresh rate that the monitor can handle and prevent you
from selecting a refresh rate that is too high for the monitor at a particular resolution.
The color won't be changed by monitor drivers. If they don't work like they are supposed
to then it might be a problem.

Below is something from http://www.sony-cp.com/en/support/faq/ that agrees with what
people have been saying about monitor drivers.

Are Sony monitors compatible with all graphics cards?
All current Sony monitors are Multiscan products. There is no one exact frequency required
for any resolution. In general, we STRONGLY recommend using VESA timings, because Sony
monitors operate properly in that mode. However, if these timings are not useful, all our
monitors will operate within a wide range of frequencies. Furthermore, please check in the
Specifications paragraph of the user's manual for the recommended resolution.

*** A common misconception is that there are monitor drivers for video cards. This is
little more than a file containing a list of scan frequencies and resolutions.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 11, 2005 4:03:33 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:09 GMT, (Ben Myers) wrote:

>Good point. I have encountered very few situations where the Windows 98 drivers
>will not work. In fact, I consider Windows 95A (the original. Ugh!), Windows
>95, Windows 95C, and Windows 98 First Edition to be beta-testing releases of
>Windows 98 Second Edition, when Microsoft got the DOS-kerneled Windows just
>about right... Ben Myers

Two points:
1) Win95A = Win95 SP1, not the original Win95
2) None of Win9x GUI run on a DOS kernel, though they boot from one

The usual judgement is that Win98 SE was the definitive fulfillment of
the original Windows 95 brief, but it should be noted that between
Win95 original and Win98 SE, several changes were made that eroded
part of that design brief, where backwards compatibility was
concerned. These were not much lamented, as the need for backwards
compatibility faded over the years.

My take is that *all* of the Win9x series were worthwhile OSs,
especially when compared to Win3.yuk, and if anything should have
stayed in beta a bit longer, it was WinME.

In terms of bugginess (as a criterion for "should have stayed in
beta"), the original Win95 and Win98 SE aren't that far apart. By the
time Win98 SE rolled around, the feature set had been much improved,
but with this came new bugs, and exploitable ones at that... e.g.

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm

....though king of direct exploitability still has to go to NT < XP
SP2. There's no equivalent to RPC and LSASS exploits in any Win9x,
i.e. where simply connecting to the Internet and doing nothing at all
is enough to get you hit (once you avoid F&PS on Internet, that is).



>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 11, 2005 7:19:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

DaveJohnson12@nomail. wrote:

> On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:09 GMT, ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>
>>Good point. I have encountered very few situations where the Windows 98 drivers
>>will not work. In fact, I consider Windows 95A (the original. Ugh!), Windows
>>95, Windows 95C, and Windows 98 First Edition to be beta-testing releases of
>>Windows 98 Second Edition, when Microsoft got the DOS-kerneled Windows just
>>about right... Ben Myers
>
>
> The problem I'm having is with the color and brightness. I have the brightness set to zero
> and colors are still washed out. People here have told me that the drivers will allow the
> combinations of resolution and refresh rate that the monitor can handle and prevent you
> from selecting a refresh rate that is too high for the monitor at a particular resolution.
> The color won't be changed by monitor drivers. If they don't work like they are supposed
> to then it might be a problem.
>
> Below is something from http://www.sony-cp.com/en/support/faq/ that agrees with what
> people have been saying about monitor drivers.
>
> Are Sony monitors compatible with all graphics cards?
> All current Sony monitors are Multiscan products. There is no one exact frequency required
> for any resolution. In general, we STRONGLY recommend using VESA timings, because Sony
> monitors operate properly in that mode. However, if these timings are not useful, all our
> monitors will operate within a wide range of frequencies. Furthermore, please check in the
> Specifications paragraph of the user's manual for the recommended resolution.
>
> *** A common misconception is that there are monitor drivers for video cards. This is
> little more than a file containing a list of scan frequencies and resolutions.

Right, as someone pointed out, there's an .inf file and, perhaps, an
..icm file for color.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 11, 2005 8:02:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
Windows 95... Ben Myers

On Wed, 11 May 2005 00:03:33 +0200, "cquirke (MVP Windows shell/user)"
<cquirkenews@nospam.mvps.org> wrote:

>On Mon, 09 May 2005 12:37:09 GMT, (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>Good point. I have encountered very few situations where the Windows 98 drivers
>>will not work. In fact, I consider Windows 95A (the original. Ugh!), Windows
>>95, Windows 95C, and Windows 98 First Edition to be beta-testing releases of
>>Windows 98 Second Edition, when Microsoft got the DOS-kerneled Windows just
>>about right... Ben Myers
>
>Two points:
>1) Win95A = Win95 SP1, not the original Win95
>2) None of Win9x GUI run on a DOS kernel, though they boot from one
>
>The usual judgement is that Win98 SE was the definitive fulfillment of
>the original Windows 95 brief, but it should be noted that between
>Win95 original and Win98 SE, several changes were made that eroded
>part of that design brief, where backwards compatibility was
>concerned. These were not much lamented, as the need for backwards
>compatibility faded over the years.
>
>My take is that *all* of the Win9x series were worthwhile OSs,
>especially when compared to Win3.yuk, and if anything should have
>stayed in beta a bit longer, it was WinME.
>
>In terms of bugginess (as a criterion for "should have stayed in
>beta"), the original Win95 and Win98 SE aren't that far apart. By the
>time Win98 SE rolled around, the feature set had been much improved,
>but with this came new bugs, and exploitable ones at that... e.g.
>
>http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/mimehole.htm
>
>...though king of direct exploitability still has to go to NT < XP
>SP2. There's no equivalent to RPC and LSASS exploits in any Win9x,
>i.e. where simply connecting to the Internet and doing nothing at all
>is enough to get you hit (once you avoid F&PS on Internet, that is).
>
>
>
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
> Gone to bloggery: http://cquirke.blogspot.com
>>---------- ----- ---- --- -- - - - -
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 11, 2005 8:02:37 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:

>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
>Windows 95... Ben Myers

It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
- posted workarounds to that.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 11, 2005 10:11:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Tim,

That;s what I thought, but the memory dims, and I can't always recall facts
perfectly... Ben Myers

On Wed, 11 May 2005 12:21:14 -0400, Tim Slattery <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote:

>ben_myers_spam_me_not @ charter.net (Ben Myers) wrote:
>
>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>
>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>- posted workarounds to that.
>
>--
>Tim Slattery
>MS MVP(DTS)
>Slattery_T@bls.gov
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 4:23:27 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:

>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>
>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>- posted workarounds to that.

Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?


--
pixel

So many idiots - so few comets.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 4:23:28 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Win 95c was the last OEM version, with more or less minor fixups compared to Win
95b, just before Windows 98 FE. Some Windows 95 historian can fill in all the
details of the differences between b and c... Ben Myers

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~" <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl> wrote:

>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
>
>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>>
>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>>- posted workarounds to that.
>
>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
>
>
>--
>pixel
>
>So many idiots - so few comets.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 6:35:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~" <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl> wrote:

>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
>
>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well before
>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it was a
>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the original
>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>>
>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>>- posted workarounds to that.
>
>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?

I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 6:35:56 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Ah, a trip down memory lane...95c was also known as OSR 2.1. It was a minor
upgrade to 95b and was available only to OEMs. No new features added, just a
technical upgrade. I believe it supported certain hardware that was
previously unsupported, but you can look it up on the web if you're
interested in the details.

Ted Zieglar

<DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
news:u6g5819ibb5ns6dr4olfgoa9ucf181rflm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~" <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
>>
>>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well
>>>>before
>>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it
>>>>was a
>>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the
>>>>original
>>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>>>
>>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>>>- posted workarounds to that.
>>
>>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
>
> I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 8:09:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Some info on Windows 95 4.00.950c, aka Win95C:

http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/win95ver.htm


<DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
news:u6g5819ibb5ns6dr4olfgoa9ucf181rflm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~" <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl>
> wrote:
>
>>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
>>
>>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well
>>>>before
>>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it
>>>>was a
>>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the
>>>>original
>>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>>>
>>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>>>- posted workarounds to that.
>>
>>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
>
> I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 1:30:09 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

Allow me to correct myself: Windows 95c was OSR 2.5, not 2.1, and it
included Internet Explorer 4.0 and new clients for the Microsoft Network,
America Online, AT&T and CompuServe, in addition to expanded hardware
support.

--
Ted Zieglar
"You can do it if you try."

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:1sOdnT2XBYwxXx_fRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> Ah, a trip down memory lane...95c was also known as OSR 2.1. It was a
minor
> upgrade to 95b and was available only to OEMs. No new features added, just
a
> technical upgrade. I believe it supported certain hardware that was
> previously unsupported, but you can look it up on the web if you're
> interested in the details.
>
> Ted Zieglar
>
> <DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
> news:u6g5819ibb5ns6dr4olfgoa9ucf181rflm@4ax.com...
> > On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~"
<jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
> >>
> >>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released
well
> >>>>before
> >>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it
> >>>>was a
> >>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as
the
> >>>>original
> >>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
> >>>
> >>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
> >>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
> >>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
> >>>- posted workarounds to that.
> >>
> >>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
> >
> > I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
>
May 12, 2005 3:13:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

must you make us relive the nightmare yet again? ;-)

"Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
news:rSIge.129$8t3.13034620@news.sisna.com...
> Allow me to correct myself: Windows 95c was OSR 2.5, not 2.1, and it
> included Internet Explorer 4.0 and new clients for the Microsoft Network,
> America Online, AT&T and CompuServe, in addition to expanded hardware
> support.
>
> --
> Ted Zieglar
> "You can do it if you try."
>
> "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1sOdnT2XBYwxXx_fRVn-1g@comcast.com...
> > Ah, a trip down memory lane...95c was also known as OSR 2.1. It was a
> minor
> > upgrade to 95b and was available only to OEMs. No new features added,
just
> a
> > technical upgrade. I believe it supported certain hardware that was
> > previously unsupported, but you can look it up on the web if you're
> > interested in the details.
> >
> > Ted Zieglar
> >
> > <DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
> > news:u6g5819ibb5ns6dr4olfgoa9ucf181rflm@4ax.com...
> > > On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~"
> <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
> > >>
> > >>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released
> well
> > >>>>before
> > >>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least
it
> > >>>>was a
> > >>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as
> the
> > >>>>original
> > >>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
> > >>>
> > >>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
> > >>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original
Win95
> > >>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
> > >>>- posted workarounds to that.
> > >>
> > >>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
> > >
> > > I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
> >
>
>
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 4:30:59 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Wed, 11 May 2005 22:42:55 -0400, "Ted Zieglar" <teddyz@notmail.com> wrote:

>Ah, a trip down memory lane...95c was also known as OSR 2.1. It was a minor
>upgrade to 95b and was available only to OEMs. No new features added, just a
>technical upgrade. I believe it supported certain hardware that was
>previously unsupported, but you can look it up on the web if you're
>interested in the details.

Thanks, it's not that important. I was just curious.

>
>Ted Zieglar
>
><DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
>news:u6g5819ibb5ns6dr4olfgoa9ucf181rflm@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~" <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
>>>
>>>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well
>>>>>before
>>>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it
>>>>>was a
>>>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the
>>>>>original
>>>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>>>>
>>>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>>>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>>>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>>>>- posted workarounds to that.
>>>
>>>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
>>
>> I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
Anonymous
a b \ Driver
a b C Monitor
May 12, 2005 4:32:08 PM

Archived from groups: alt.sys.pc-clone.dell,microsoft.public.win95.general.discussion,alt.windows95,alt.os.windows95,alt.sys.pc-clone.compaq (More info?)

On Thu, 12 May 2005 04:09:36 GMT, "mdp" <markdpend@spambegone.aol.com> wrote:

>Some info on Windows 95 4.00.950c, aka Win95C:

Thanks.

>
>http://cquirke.mvps.org/9x/win95ver.htm
>
>
><DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
>news:u6g5819ibb5ns6dr4olfgoa9ucf181rflm@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 12 May 2005 00:23:27 +0200, "Pixel \"#~" <jjwweerrff@phil.uu.nl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Earlier Tim Slattery muttered:
>>>
>>>>>Well, whatever the original Windows 95 was called, it was released well
>>>>>before
>>>>>its time. If Windows 95A with SP1 included FAT32 support, at least it
>>>>>was a
>>>>>step forward. If not, I have to put it in the same garbage pail as the
>>>>>original
>>>>>Windows 95... Ben Myers
>>>>
>>>>It didn't. FAT32 debuted with OEM SR2 (Win95b). That was an OEM
>>>>release only, there was no (official) way to upgrade an original Win95
>>>>or Win95a system to Win95b. Various people - Sean Erwin comes to mind
>>>>- posted workarounds to that.
>>>
>>>Speaking of which, what's this Win95c I sometimes here about?
>>
>> I was wondering too. I never heard of that one.
>
!