cannot get correct widescreen resolution(s)

[squirltop]

Hi I have a acer X233H 23 in wide lcd monitor. In win xp it does not
recognize the screen resolution(s) that it would need to look right. I
tried removing the plug and play drivers
and rebootingl.

I downloaded drivers from the site for the monitor, but I guess I need
to know where to put them?
It has .cat .icm and .inf

Do I just unpack them someplace and point driver update there?

Thanks for any suggestions and replies

 

[Paul]

Hi I have a acer X233H 23 in wide lcd monitor. In win xp it does not
recognize the screen resolution(s) that it would need to look right. I
tried removing the plug and play drivers
and rebootingl.

I downloaded drivers from the site for the monitor, but I guess I need
to know where to put them?
It has .cat .icm and .inf

Do I just unpack them someplace and point driver update there?

Thanks for any suggestions and replies

Try right-clicking the .INF file and the popup menu
should have an "Install" item second from the top.

Once you complete that, go to Display:Settings:Advanced:Monitor
and verify that the selected monitor has a name. It should be
the product name. For example, before I installed my
monitor driver, the monitor showed as a "generic" of
some sort (my plug and play didn't seem to work). After
installing the monitor driver, it shows as "NEC LCD1765".
The name you'll see, should be one of the string values
in the INF file.

What the INF file should do for you, is set the
maximum resolution. In my INF file it says

; Pre-defined AddReg sections
[1280]
HKR,,MaxResolution,,"1280,1024"

In some cases, the problem is actually the video driver
for the GPU. If you have built-in Intel graphics for
example, some of those have ancient choices for aspect
ratio, if you're using a really old driver. It may take
an update on the driver, to fix it.

Interesting. Your native resolution is 1920x1080 (1.77). Well,
that would give an integrated graphics chip a workout.
I guess now, it is a matter of you stating what you're driving
it with.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009163&Tpk=X233H

That resolution is 1080p, more or less. Perhaps there is
some different procedure to get that resolution set up.
Unfortunately, for Nvidia now, the "new" control panel
doesn't come with anything resembling a user manual, so
I cannot read any documentation and give a hint as to
where to look. With their "Classic" control panel, they
had a decent manual with a few pictures.

Paul

 

[squirltop]

Hi I have a acer X233H 23 in wide lcd monitor. In win xp it does not
recognize the screen resolution(s) that it would need to look right. I
tried removing the plug and play drivers
and rebootingl.

I downloaded drivers from the site for the monitor, but I guess I need
to know where to put them?
It has .cat .icm and .inf

Do I just unpack them someplace and point driver update there?

Thanks for any suggestions and replies

Try right-clicking the .INF file and the popup menu
should have an "Install" item second from the top.

Once you complete that, go to Display:Settings:Advanced:Monitor
and verify that the selected monitor has a name. It should be
the product name. For example, before I installed my
monitor driver, the monitor showed as a "generic" of
some sort (my plug and play didn't seem to work). After
installing the monitor driver, it shows as "NEC LCD1765".
The name you'll see, should be one of the string values
in the INF file.

What the INF file should do for you, is set the
maximum resolution. In my INF file it says

; Pre-defined AddReg sections
[1280]
HKR,,MaxResolution,,"1280,1024"

In some cases, the problem is actually the video driver
for the GPU. If you have built-in Intel graphics for
example, some of those have ancient choices for aspect
ratio, if you're using a really old driver. It may take
an update on the driver, to fix it.

I will look into that, all I tried to do was update the plug'n'play
driver.

Interesting. Your native resolution is 1920x1080 (1.77). Well,
that would give an integrated graphics chip a workout.
I guess now, it is a matter of you stating what you're driving
it with.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009163&Tpk=X233H

Thanks for the reply, it's integrated, soo. I am guessing I could
benefit most by getting a video card? If that's the case I saw one for
cheap!

 

[DL]

You have updated drivers from PC mnfctr's site, and not MS Update?

Hi I have a acer X233H 23 in wide lcd monitor. In win xp it does not
recognize the screen resolution(s) that it would need to look right. I
tried removing the plug and play drivers
and rebootingl.

I downloaded drivers from the site for the monitor, but I guess I need
to know where to put them?
It has .cat .icm and .inf

Do I just unpack them someplace and point driver update there?

Thanks for any suggestions and replies

Try right-clicking the .INF file and the popup menu
should have an "Install" item second from the top.

Once you complete that, go to Display:Settings:Advanced:Monitor
and verify that the selected monitor has a name. It should be
the product name. For example, before I installed my
monitor driver, the monitor showed as a "generic" of
some sort (my plug and play didn't seem to work). After
installing the monitor driver, it shows as "NEC LCD1765".
The name you'll see, should be one of the string values
in the INF file.

What the INF file should do for you, is set the
maximum resolution. In my INF file it says

; Pre-defined AddReg sections
[1280]
HKR,,MaxResolution,,"1280,1024"

In some cases, the problem is actually the video driver
for the GPU. If you have built-in Intel graphics for
example, some of those have ancient choices for aspect
ratio, if you're using a really old driver. It may take
an update on the driver, to fix it.

I will look into that, all I tried to do was update the plug'n'play
driver.

Interesting. Your native resolution is 1920x1080 (1.77). Well,
that would give an integrated graphics chip a workout.
I guess now, it is a matter of you stating what you're driving
it with.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009163&Tpk=X233H

Thanks for the reply, it's integrated, soo. I am guessing I could
benefit most by getting a video card? If that's the case I saw one for
cheap!

 

[Paul]

Thanks for the reply, it's integrated, soo. I am guessing I could
benefit most by getting a video card? If that's the case I saw one for
cheap!

The fact it is integrated isn't so bad. The only thing integrated
sucks for, is gaming.

One problem with integrated, is not all companies put the
work into the drivers that they should. I'm curious as to
whether 1920x1080 is supported in your integrated graphics
driver. The hardware itself is probably OK, but sometimes
the level of driver support makes things tougher than it
has to be.

If you buy a video card, don't go back too far in time, when
selecting one. Some of the older cards don't have very good
DVI outputs. DVI should work at up to 165MHz clock rate.
Some of the early cards, were only good to about 135MHz or
so. Which means that the upper resolution settings might
not be available on those cards. If you've picking up
a more modern card, the DVI should go all the way to
165MHz. (See the Wikipedia resolution table, for what
165MHz can do for you. There are examples in the single
link DVI table. Each resolution has a cable clock rate
listed. Each resolution causes the data on the cable
to operate at a different speed.)

That is on DVI. If you were using the VGA connector,
then those have been working properly for many years.
You'd have to go back a bit, to find a card with
crappy DACs on it. I think I have one card like that
in the house, which has two connectors, and one connector
has different resolution limits than the other. One of
the DACs has a lower max bandwidth. But that card is
probably 10 years old.

Paul

 

[squirltop]

The fact it is integrated isn't so bad. The only thing integrated
sucks for, is gaming.

I'm not much of a 'heavy gamer' but I do like the games I like, along
with mame games, and they can get sluggish. Upgraded ram recently and
with the new monitor and new card,
should be happy with the performance.

One problem with integrated, is not all companies put the
work into the drivers that they should.

Yea, I'm also thinking about linux. As it stood I think it would have
been a no-go either way.

I looked at the drivers from compaq and I think they are pretty
mismatched from what I have installed, as I don't use the supplied
compaq\winxp install disk and compaq support.

Probably be better for hardware updates, I would guess, but getting
updates through windows update seems thorough enough. Maybe not in my
case here for video though?

I'm curious as to
whether 1920x1080 is supported in your integrated graphics
driver. The hardware itself is probably OK, but sometimes
the level of driver support makes things tougher than it
has to be.

After installing from the the .inf it displayed better than 1024x768,
but it didn't display the newly installed driver its-self.

Changing resolution(s) to a higher resolution, it changes but still
looks compressed (squished) and poor quality under plug and play..

Maybe a hardware driver update from compaq, instead of through
windowsupdate would get it there.

I've been wanting to get a card for a while though and that is the
direction I am going. Not sure if i want to go and start installing
hardware video update drivers from compaq right now.

I assume with the new card everything will be updated to the new card
properly after installing the drivers.

If you buy a video card, don't go back too far in time, when
selecting one. Some of the older cards don't have very good
DVI outputs. DVI should work at up to 165MHz clock rate.
Some of the early cards, were only good to about 135MHz or
so. Which means that the upper resolution settings might
not be available on those cards. If you've picking up
a more modern card, the DVI should go all the way to
165MHz. (See the Wikipedia resolution table, for what
165MHz can do for you. There are examples in the single
link DVI table. Each resolution has a cable clock rate
listed. Each resolution causes the data on the cable
to operate at a different speed.)

That is on DVI. If you were using the VGA connector,
then those have been working properly for many years.
You'd have to go back a bit, to find a card with
crappy DACs on it. I think I have one card like that
in the house, which has two connectors, and one connector
has different resolution limits than the other. One of
the DACs has a lower max bandwidth. But that card is
probably 10 years old.

Paul

Great, with all the info I think I have a pretty good understanding to
get going.

The board doesn't support DVI. So anyway I will get card that supports
up to 165MHz. I saw a geforce card for a good price that does that
recently.

Thanks, you helped make what was mostly confusion understandable. I'll
try to post what happens.