So I have a new 20" 1600x900 LCD monitor, which I am using to replace the old 17" monitor that came with my mother's Dell. Unfortunately, it's an old PC and the chipset doesn't support this resolution. I'm hoping that I can either
a) force a custom resolution or
b) purchase a cheap, low power, old graphics card
so that she can use this monitor for her purposes (watching videos). The monitor works but currently is at a stretched resolution of 1280x768.
Any suggestions?
NOTES:
-I've already tried using PowerStrip and DTD Calculator, although I did it wrong. I tried it and bricked my computer; I had to boot into safe mode to revert the changes. Can someone point out the correct way to do it?
-The computer is a Dell Dimension E310, with 2 PCI (not express) slots and a PCIe X1 slot and a 230 watt(?) power supply, I believe. No AGP slots, unfortunately. I've been looking at an ATI Radeon 9250 on eBay; would that work? (That would have the added benefit of a DVI digital output, which would be an improvement over the current analog VGA out.)
-Yes, I could buy a new computer. That would defeat the point of this exercise, though. The current one is fine for its purposes.
Thanks, Toms!
a) force a custom resolution or
b) purchase a cheap, low power, old graphics card
so that she can use this monitor for her purposes (watching videos). The monitor works but currently is at a stretched resolution of 1280x768.
Any suggestions?
NOTES:
-I've already tried using PowerStrip and DTD Calculator, although I did it wrong. I tried it and bricked my computer; I had to boot into safe mode to revert the changes. Can someone point out the correct way to do it?
-The computer is a Dell Dimension E310, with 2 PCI (not express) slots and a PCIe X1 slot and a 230 watt(?) power supply, I believe. No AGP slots, unfortunately. I've been looking at an ATI Radeon 9250 on eBay; would that work? (That would have the added benefit of a DVI digital output, which would be an improvement over the current analog VGA out.)
-Yes, I could buy a new computer. That would defeat the point of this exercise, though. The current one is fine for its purposes.
Thanks, Toms!