Monitor Too Big????

[Dave]

New monitor, 19" wide screen Dell, for a Dell Dimension 2350 comp. This
monitor has slowed down the 2350 unbelievably - looks like this was a big,
(wide screen) mistake. The comp only has 256 ram; I'm sure more would help,
but does it make sense that a wider screen would make such a dramatic
difference?

Dell 2350 + Dell 1908 WFP 19" monitor
Win XP Home SP2

 

[RobertVA]

New monitor, 19" wide screen Dell, for a Dell Dimension 2350 comp. This
monitor has slowed down the 2350 unbelievably - looks like this was a big,
(wide screen) mistake. The comp only has 256 ram; I'm sure more would help,
but does it make sense that a wider screen would make such a dramatic
difference?

Dell 2350 + Dell 1908 WFP 19" monitor
Win XP Home SP2

If the video interface is integrated into the computer's motherboard,
the higher resolution, even if only in the width, might be deducting
additional space from the main memory that's normally available for
applications. That would force Windows to make more frequent use of the
hard disk's swap/page file - MUCH slower than the electronic memory on a
memory strip.

You're correct that 256MB is a serious drag on Windows XP system
performance, even if an integrated video interface isn't deducting from
it. Any computer with Window's minimum main RAM requirement doesn't
"run" Windows, it "crawls" it. Shoot for a full Gigabyte if your budget
permits it, even if doing so means removing your existing memory strip(s).

 

[Dave]

Thank you Robert - appreciate the comments
I have a full gig on order, that's the max for this machine. We will see.

Thx again
Dave

 

[JS]

The specifications for your Dell 2350:
http://support.dell.com/support/edocs/systems/dim2350/specs.htm#1101572

The video specifications show an "integrated Intel 3D Extreme Graphics"
controller.
This means that some of the 256MB of ram memory is being used by the video
controller.
Probably this explains the poor performance.

Therefore you normally would have two possibilities:
1) Upgrade your ram from 256MB to at least 512MB
2) Upgrade by adding a Video Card and disable the built in video control in
the BIOS.

Since your specifications show only three 33Mhz PCI slots/connectors and no
AGP
or PCI Express connector for a Video card you will need to locate a "PCI"
(not PCI Express)
card. Your power supply is only rated at 200 watts so stay away from a
monster video card with
256MB to 512MB of on the card ram, with a big heat sink, fan and separate
power connector
from the card to your power supply, your power supply will not handle a high
end card.

Take a look at newegg.com and tigerdirect for a plain PCI card.
These cards along with 512MB ram upgrade should do the trick.

JS
http://www.pagestart.com

 

[Bob Harris]

I have had several monitor/PC combinations, and never found that any monitor
impacted PC speed, so long as I used the same video settings as I had
previously.

Of, course, one of the reasons to get a new, bigger, better monitor is to
use high resolution (more pixels) and/or higher depth of color (e.g., 32 bit
vs 16 bit).

Whether you can achieve the desired goal depends on the PC's video card (or
built-in equivalent). For best/clearest viewing, there is one X by Y size
that is best for the monitor (if flat panel), the one that matches its
physical number of pixels. Anything else will require interpolation or
averaging, and be fuzzier, and might also be slower. However, whether the
PC's video can handle what the monitor wants would be something worth
investigating.

As for speed, distinct from just getting the pixels and color depth, be sure
to turn on "hardware acceleration", if your PC's video supports it. Note
that you may need to install some drivers that come with most monitors
before this option becomes available. That is, both the PC and the monitor
must agree on how to transfer data. Otherwise, the pair may default to some
antique standard, which will be slow, and lack 3D.

One hint, when it comes to refresh rate, the old idea that higher is better
does not apply to LCD and plasma screens. Read the manual for the monitor,
but usually they will tell you to pick 60Hz.

As for RAM, 256 Meg seems on the low side for XP, if you also want to run
applications programs, and certainly if you want to do anything CPU
intensive, like photo or video editing.

Check to see whether the PC has separate video memory, and whether that can
be expanded. If integrated memory, check to see whether you can increase
the allocation to video. This would be a setting in the BIOS, not in XP.
But, before actually increasing the allocation, add some RAM, since using
more of the 256 Meg for video will mean that much less for XP and programs.

 

[Bob Knowlden]

I'm not sure that it's the root of your problem, but your PC shares RAM with
its onboard graphics. The least expensive thing to try is going to the
maximum memory the machine can handle (1 GB total, two 512 MB DIMMs). Here's
a source, if you're in the US:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produ...urator&CFG=CFG003Dimension 2350 Series&DEPA=0

The cheapest I see is:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820141164

($13 each stick, with free shipping. Out of stock at the moment, estimated
to be back 10/3. I might spend a few more bucks for the Corsair
ValueSelect.)

XP should be happier with 1GB of RAM. I hope that your machine becomes
responsive enough.