Gene said:
I have a Dell Dimensions 2400 series, Pentium 4 processor at 2.66GHz
I looked at three 20" monitors on the Dell site, and they all had
both a VGA and a DVI connector.
If the built-in VGA graphics don't work out, you may be able to install
a PCI graphics card in an open PCI slot. They still make cards
to do that. (Check that you still have a spare slot, to install
such a card.) Since your OS is WinXP, there shouldn't be a problem
getting a driver for a new card. (I have Win2K on another machine,
and they've stopped providing Win2K drivers, which makes upgrading
the graphics more difficult. For that machine, I have to purchase
an older card.)
The body of this PCI graphics card is low profile, while the
faceplate is regular profile. Some computer cases are smaller
and only take a low profile card. Some low profile cards come
with replaceable faceplates, so you can fit a regular profile
or a low profile faceplate. In the case of a card design like
this one, fitting a low profile faceplate means losing the
VGA connector. But the reason for getting this card, is for
the DVI connector at the bottom of the faceplate. If your PCI
slots are regular height, then there isn't a reason to worry.
(Dell makes several computer case form factors, so I have
to mention that a bit.)
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814161227
(The DVI connector is dual-link capable on that card, which means
in theory you could drive a 30" Apple display with it. The
PCI bus limits the bandwidth to get to the video card,
and in my experiments, that showed as a problem with
programs such as Quicktime from Apple. Some programs re-render
the screen when a window is moved, and the slow bus interface
won't help matters. Virtually all the other programs I run,
didn't have a problem while I was using a PCI based FX5200.
Even a gaming benchmark gave good results, which is really
hard to believe. I compared an FX5200 AGP8X to an FX5200 PCI,
and 3DMark2001SE was similar between them. It is just large
2D images that are going to stutter a bit, due to the
quantity of data.)
http://www.hisdigital.com/un/product2-63.shtml
There is a bit of background information on DVI here. Even
a single link DVI should be able to handle 1680x1050 at 60Hz.
60Hz is the typical value for LCDs. I am using 60Hz right
now, and unlike a CRT, there is no flicker on an LCD with that
setting. If I still had my old CRT, I'd have it set to 75Hz
or so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
So what you can do, is purchase the monitor (but not the video
card). Try the monitor with your PC and see if you can coax
1680x1050 out of it. (Post back here on your progress.)
If it doesn't work out, check you have a spare PCI slot,
then shop for a video card. You can run the monitor at a lower
resolution using the 865GV for the few days it'll take to ship
the video card. Then, install the card, install the driver disc,
and plug in the monitor. It may take some fiddling to make the
new card and display the primary monitor. An example that
popped up in a search, is here...
http://www.amazon.com/review/R1PFW7IA6PFF1C/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt/186-6002544-9813057#R1PFW7IA6PFF1C
I find it difficult to answer questions such as "can my
865GV support 1680x1050". On the one hand, it is easy to
find tech info to verify the basic hardware can do the job.
The part that cannot be answered, is what restrictions the
drivers will impose. In some cases, Intel has added the
wide screen formats to their later drivers, but when I checked,
the last driver for 865GV was some time in 2005. Hard to say
whether Intel fixed up that driver or not. About all I
could "guarantee" about any (recent) graphics card and
driver, is that they could do 1280x1024. Anything more
than that, relies on the generosity of driver writers.
(From the Intel datasheet for 865GV)
"The GMCH’s analog port uses an integrated 350 MHz RAMDAC
that can directly drive a standard progressive scan analog
monitor up to a resolution of 2048x1536 pixels with 32-bit
color at 75 Hz." --- VGA spec.
HTH,
Paul
