Which VGA cards and drivers support Virtual Desktop on XP?

[Guest]

Hi,
I am trying to choose a new VGA card and I would like
to have a Virtual Desktop support in Windows XP
(where display resolution is lower from Dekstop resolution
and a there is a facility to Pan the screen).
Note: I don't need Multiple Virtual Desktops support
(there are plenty of such tools).

I remember in the past ATI used to have such support,
but I cannot find any definite information about modern ATI cards and
drivers.
I cannot find any definite explanation on ATI site and I cannot try their
drivers without first buying a card.

So, if somebody has a more or less recent ATI card (or any other vendor's
card) with Virtual Desktop feature, could you, please, tell me:
- whether this feature, indeed, works
- what is the maximum Desktop resolution?
Is the maximum resolution limited to the Card's maximum resolution?

I would like to have a larger resolution, something around 4000x3500,
but if the Desktop resolution is limited to the Card's resolution (and
most cards appear to be limited to 2048x1536 these days),
then this will not work for me.

Does anybody know what is the theoretical maximum resolution in XP?
Will there be any changes in Vista?
Are there third party applications, which can provide such Virtual Desktop?

Thank you
John

 

[Alan]

Hi,
I am trying to choose a new VGA card and I would like
to have a Virtual Desktop support in Windows XP
(where display resolution is lower from Dekstop resolution
and a there is a facility to Pan the screen).
Note: I don't need Multiple Virtual Desktops support
(there are plenty of such tools).

I remember in the past ATI used to have such support,
but I cannot find any definite information about modern ATI cards and
drivers.
I cannot find any definite explanation on ATI site and I cannot try their
drivers without first buying a card.

So, if somebody has a more or less recent ATI card (or any other vendor's
card) with Virtual Desktop feature, could you, please, tell me:
- whether this feature, indeed, works
- what is the maximum Desktop resolution?
Is the maximum resolution limited to the Card's maximum resolution?

I would like to have a larger resolution, something around 4000x3500,
but if the Desktop resolution is limited to the Card's resolution (and
most cards appear to be limited to 2048x1536 these days),
then this will not work for me.

Does anybody know what is the theoretical maximum resolution in XP?
Will there be any changes in Vista?
Are there third party applications, which can provide such Virtual
Desktop?

Thank you
John

Not really a WindowsXP question, more the graphics card/hardware.

Try looking in a the graphics card makers web sites or a relevant newsgroup.
It may be worth looking through the many review sites for relevant tests
(web search)

 

[J. Clarke]

Hi,
I am trying to choose a new VGA card and I would like
to have a Virtual Desktop support in Windows XP
(where display resolution is lower from Dekstop resolution
and a there is a facility to Pan the screen).
Note: I don't need Multiple Virtual Desktops support
(there are plenty of such tools).

I remember in the past ATI used to have such support,
but I cannot find any definite information about modern ATI cards and
drivers.
I cannot find any definite explanation on ATI site and I cannot try their
drivers without first buying a card.

So, if somebody has a more or less recent ATI card (or any other vendor's
card) with Virtual Desktop feature, could you, please, tell me:
- whether this feature, indeed, works
- what is the maximum Desktop resolution?
Is the maximum resolution limited to the Card's maximum resolution?

I would like to have a larger resolution, something around 4000x3500,
but if the Desktop resolution is limited to the Card's resolution (and
most cards appear to be limited to 2048x1536 these days),
then this will not work for me.

Does anybody know what is the theoretical maximum resolution in XP?
Will there be any changes in Vista?
Are there third party applications, which can provide such Virtual
Desktop?

Out of the box support is pretty much gone. You can get it with reasonable
functionality in older Matrox boards using older drivers but not the most
recent ones. The same is true for ATI boards, but the functionality is
less because there's no control of the number of resolutions it goes
through and in some of them it reconfigures the desktop instead.

There are some third-party alternatives intended for the visually impaired
but the prices are ludicrous and the ones I've played with have done it in
software and not by panning in the frame buffer like the manufacturer
solutions do, which causes problems with overlays and whatnot.

If you're desperate, there is one from one of those vendors for about 100
bucks, <http://www.aisquared.com/Products/BigShot/index.cfm> with less
functionality than the one that they target at the visually impaired
market. Near as I can tell it doesn't allow a virtual desktop larger than
the max that the monitor can display though.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for your answer.

Out of the box support is pretty much gone.

That's what I was afraid of.
But I see some (not too old) posts like
http://groups.google.com/group/alt....a9dabde?q=virtual+pan&rnum=4#3f4b14c07a9dabde
which mention panning and virtual resolution.
Were they using old drivers?

the ones I've played with have done it in software and not by panning
in the frame buffer like the manufacturer solutions do, which causes
problems with overlays and whatnot.

Well, I don't know for sure, but I am afraid that achieving the high
resolution I need (like 4000x3500), cannot be done in frame buffer
if the card's maximum resolution is just 2048x1536
(please, correct me if I am wrong).
So, it have to be in the main memory, which is fine for my purposes.

there is one from one of those vendors for about 100
bucks, <http://www.aisquared.com/Products/BigShot/index.cfm>
it doesn't allow a virtual desktop larger than the max that the monitor
can display though.

That's right - it is just a screen magnifier (kind of enhanced version of
the XP's built-in Magnifier). It does not affect the desktop resolution at
all
and is useless for me.

John

 

[John]

Not really a WindowsXP question, more the graphics card/hardware.

Try looking in a the graphics card makers web sites or a relevant
newsgroup. It may be worth looking through the many review sites for
relevant tests (web search)

Thank you for your answer.

Certainly I searched everywhere and found that most
questions about the Virtual Desktop for XP were posted
in the past in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general,
but there were no satisfactory answers. So, I thought that one more post
will not kill.

John

 

[First of One]

Well, I don't know for sure, but I am afraid that achieving the high
resolution I need (like 4000x3500), cannot be done in frame buffer
if the card's maximum resolution is just 2048x1536
(please, correct me if I am wrong).
So, it have to be in the main memory, which is fine for my purposes.

I'm not too familiar with virtual desktop functionality. 4000x3500 (which is
not 4:3, by the way...) at 32 bpp takes up about 56 MB of framebuffer space,
or 113 MB with double-buffering. Modern cards with 128 MB technically can
hold this in the framebuffer. It all boils down to driver and software
support.

 

[Guest]

Thank you for the answer.

Modern cards with 128 MB technically can hold this in the framebuffer.

Sounds logical. But why then even cards with 256 MB still specify
maximum resolution of 2048x1536? If it is not memory size,
than what else is the limiting factor?

It all boils down to driver and software support.

So, are you sure that there are no such drivers for any modern video card?

 

[Bob I]

Because the drivers are written to support standards, see example

http://www.answers.com/topic/video-graphics-array

 

[Guest]

Because the drivers are written to support standards, see example

http://www.answers.com/topic/video-graphics-array

Great, the same site also lists higher resolutions like 4096×3072, ...,
7680×4800
so the drivers could have supported a higher virtual resolution, right?

 

[Bob I]

IF the vendor/manufacturer chooses to do so.

Great, the same site also lists higher resolutions like 4096×3072, ...,
7680×4800
so the drivers could have supported a higher virtual resolution, right?

 

[J. Clarke]

Great, the same site also lists higher resolutions like 4096×3072, ...,
7680×4800
so the drivers could have supported a higher virtual resolution, right?

PowerStrip has predefined resolutions up to 3840x2400p (intended for use
with an IBM T221) and can no doubt go higher.

Trying that on my laptop I find that I can indeed enable that resolution and
with an ATI Radeon Mobility 9600 I do indeed get a scrollable desktop of
that logical resoluion.

Newer ATI drivers, however, ignore Powerstrip settings.

 

[J. Clarke]

Because the drivers are written to support standards, see example

http://www.answers.com/topic/video-graphics-array

Which contains not much that's really relevant. The VESA standards are a
_minimum_ and most boards today are designed to work with any halfway
reasonable monitor regardless of resolution as long as it does not require
a frequency beyond the range that the board's DAC can handle or more memory
than is physically installed.

There is, for example, no mention of the 1280x800 resolution that is fairly
common among laptops today, however neither nvidia's nor ATI's drivers have
any trouble detecting and supporting such a display.

The days when a display adapter has a few fixed resolutions that it can
support are long gone.