unusual monitor resolution

[Flasherly]

Have this really old Olevia/Syntax 32 flat panel/TV.

Connected only to a computer.

Went through all kinds of driver gymnastics with an AGP/ATI Radeon,
prior, I've been running up to now, in setting it up for it's native
pixel-to-pixel address scan. OEM drivers from the ATI take on things,
I've been running for ages now.

At 136-Zero X 768 resolution. At 60Hz refresh rates, nothing higher.
I suspect, strangely, this may be actually identified with the monitor
specifications.

Misinterpretation. Evidently, that resolution is and as well
available in early Windows XP.

Or so it occurs in setting up an Intel chipset MB the other evening,
onboard MB video chipset, however that works -- I believe the
driver/resolution weren't actually resolved as I'm not NET friendly.

Anyway, how these things actually work: Under display at EGA 640x480
default failures, get to install your own update drivers. Windows,
there, contains a generic list of displays. One of which is a
1600x122 "Flat Panel". That's mine -btw- for all practical intents.

Lots of stuff for rates to shut down an old monitor, like mine, within
exceeding its specifications for higher rates/resolution than the
monitor is intended.

All beside the point. Anything but a native display pixel address is
horsey malarkey (double scans and such for "filling in" what you think
you're seeing when not addressing a single pixel as a dedicated
operative.)

As I mentioned I suspected 1360x768 *may* be that objectification,
I've nonetheless reached a quandary, having available as well from
within Microsoft's XP driver provision base, one mode, aside mine,
oddly listed for 1366x768.

What do I now do with those 6 pixels, say, 3-pixels of width, side by
side to be aligned up both sides of a monitor. If a monitor is 768
pixels high, vertically, and those 3 pixels are multiplied twice, the
number in terms of tangible property, owner real estate is
substantial.

Or, are they just curb appeal, faux pixels of an erroneous result of
my misinterpreting an acceptable rate within what my monitor is [not]
actually capable of reproducing?

 

[Paul]

Have this really old Olevia/Syntax 32 flat panel/TV.

Connected only to a computer.

Went through all kinds of driver gymnastics with an AGP/ATI Radeon,
prior, I've been running up to now, in setting it up for it's native
pixel-to-pixel address scan. OEM drivers from the ATI take on things,
I've been running for ages now.

At 136-Zero X 768 resolution. At 60Hz refresh rates, nothing higher.
I suspect, strangely, this may be actually identified with the monitor
specifications.

Misinterpretation. Evidently, that resolution is and as well
available in early Windows XP.

Or so it occurs in setting up an Intel chipset MB the other evening,
onboard MB video chipset, however that works -- I believe the
driver/resolution weren't actually resolved as I'm not NET friendly.

Anyway, how these things actually work: Under display at EGA 640x480
default failures, get to install your own update drivers. Windows,
there, contains a generic list of displays. One of which is a
1600x122 "Flat Panel". That's mine -btw- for all practical intents.

Lots of stuff for rates to shut down an old monitor, like mine, within
exceeding its specifications for higher rates/resolution than the
monitor is intended.

All beside the point. Anything but a native display pixel address is
horsey malarkey (double scans and such for "filling in" what you think
you're seeing when not addressing a single pixel as a dedicated
operative.)

As I mentioned I suspected 1360x768 *may* be that objectification,
I've nonetheless reached a quandary, having available as well from
within Microsoft's XP driver provision base, one mode, aside mine,
oddly listed for 1366x768.

What do I now do with those 6 pixels, say, 3-pixels of width, side by
side to be aligned up both sides of a monitor. If a monitor is 768
pixels high, vertically, and those 3 pixels are multiplied twice, the
number in terms of tangible property, owner real estate is
substantial.

Or, are they just curb appeal, faux pixels of an erroneous result of
my misinterpreting an acceptable rate within what my monitor is [not]
actually capable of reproducing?

Some points:

1) VESA defines standard definitions. A couple VESA modes are
supported by virtually everything, so that your computer can
display a BIOS setup screen, or display an image when no video
card driver is installed in your OS.

2) *All* video hardware, is infinitely programmable. The horizontal
register and vertical register, can be programmed to any value.
(In Linux, this is called "Mode Line" programming - in Windows
you don't get to specify it.) A third party application in Windows,
called PowerStrip, effectively allows mode line programming in a
Windows environment. Typically used, when effective EDID Plug and
Play is not available.

3) The "resolution rules" for hardware, the basic rules, are
horizontal resolution should be divisible by 8. Vertical
resolution should be divisible by 2. The horizontal resolution
thing, is a historical reference to a day when "character generator"
displays, used eight bit chunks. On modern hardware (DVI or HDMI with
a chip outside the GPU for sending a signal), in fact the divisible
by 8 rule for horizontal, is no longer required. External TMDS
generators, allow a "horizontal divisible by 1" rule. You can even
do odd numbers, like 1367 x 768 in such a case. (Not many cards
have external TMDS chips.)

That leaves the topic of 1366 x 768.

The number 1366 is not divisible by 8. Some dope thought up that
resolution, as a native resolution for LCD panels. But, without
thinking about how the video card would be programmed, to drive it.
It required a second generation of LCD panels, to think up
strategies for not annoying the end-user of the product, due
to this bad resolution choice.

You can use 1360 x 768 or 1368 x 768. In fact, more modern LCD
devices, attempting to clean up the mess made by this design choice,
support all three resolution settings (tiny black bars etc).

A really old Intel chipset video driver (like for 865G), might
not even have choices above 1280x1024 in it. So that's your first
problem. And if you do get above that resolution, then you have
to deal with whether to use 1360 or 1368 (since it is likely
the divide by 8 rule is in place).

You can evaluate this software, which allows programming any
resolution. If you like it, pay the shareware fee and leave
the software running on your system. Notice how, in the
sample photo on this page, they're sending 1368 to the LCD.
If that was a bit blurry, you could dial it to 1360 and retest.

http://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/ps.shtm

Some video card drivers, the control panel allows setting a
custom resolution, in which case you don't need PowerStrip.

Paul

 

[Flasherly]

Some points:

1) VESA defines standard definitions. A couple VESA modes are
supported by virtually everything, so that your computer can
display a BIOS setup screen, or display an image when no video
card driver is installed in your OS.

2) *All* video hardware, is infinitely programmable. The horizontal
register and vertical register, can be programmed to any value.
(In Linux, this is called "Mode Line" programming - in Windows
you don't get to specify it.) A third party application in Windows,
called PowerStrip, effectively allows mode line programming in a
Windows environment. Typically used, when effective EDID Plug and
Play is not available.

3) The "resolution rules" for hardware, the basic rules, are
horizontal resolution should be divisible by 8. Vertical
resolution should be divisible by 2. The horizontal resolution
thing, is a historical reference to a day when "character generator"
displays, used eight bit chunks. On modern hardware (DVI or HDMI with
a chip outside the GPU for sending a signal), in fact the divisible
by 8 rule for horizontal, is no longer required. External TMDS
generators, allow a "horizontal divisible by 1" rule. You can even
do odd numbers, like 1367 x 768 in such a case. (Not many cards
have external TMDS chips.)

That leaves the topic of 1366 x 768.

The number 1366 is not divisible by 8. Some dope thought up that
resolution, as a native resolution for LCD panels. But, without
thinking about how the video card would be programmed, to drive it.
It required a second generation of LCD panels, to think up
strategies for not annoying the end-user of the product, due
to this bad resolution choice.

You can use 1360 x 768 or 1368 x 768. In fact, more modern LCD
devices, attempting to clean up the mess made by this design choice,
support all three resolution settings (tiny black bars etc).

A really old Intel chipset video driver (like for 865G), might
not even have choices above 1280x1024 in it. So that's your first
problem. And if you do get above that resolution, then you have
to deal with whether to use 1360 or 1368 (since it is likely
the divide by 8 rule is in place).

You can evaluate this software, which allows programming any
resolution. If you like it, pay the shareware fee and leave
the software running on your system. Notice how, in the
sample photo on this page, they're sending 1368 to the LCD.
If that was a bit blurry, you could dial it to 1360 and retest.

http://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/ps.shtm

Some video card drivers, the control panel allows setting a
custom resolution, in which case you don't need PowerStrip.

Paul

Integrated Intel Graphics Media Accelerator X4500.

Good ol' PowerStrip. A program that's been around awhile, at least 10
years. Bit of a stigma, then. I'm still getting over a patch of luck
finding a flat panel under Windows' generics at 1600x1200 -- which has
both 1366 and 1360. Made my life simpler. Migrating
software/settings over, checking the ethernet connector and then the
monitor. It was on a 19" Samsung, so I left the computers on and
swapped the video cable into the 32" Syntax I'd turned off. Actually
took it once, the X4500, but wasn't stable or something (25' video
cable), so I got a shorter, good quality SVGA 13-pin cable, and it
dropped permanently into 640x480.

1360 it will be then (...have it set for now, ghosted the OS, at
1366). Same as this ATI Radeon is doing with its OEM Omega drivers.
As I said, I don't think there's anything much loaded in the way of
drivers for the X4500. Just ghosted the AGP Radeon based Windows OS
to the Gigabyte, and plugged in MB chipset driver support only. Was
running fine on the 19" Samsung but didn't initially like the Syntax.
Basic build without any serious graphics needs and should remain so.

Getting over MS Skype's last verson that didn't involve Service Packs
or NET framework is left, along with a tweaking in Skype's finicky
microphone setup to a sound. Be done migrating over only if Skype
weren't something of a pain, but the price out to land lines and cell
relays is right. Normally I wouldn't touch the INET with a ghosted
image, but they've a tendency to apparently deny/block service on a
fresh install. Say one thing, and Skype shuts the whole damn thing
down with a stock/generic suspicious/fradulent activity filed against
PayPal, who's probably deep in bed with them.