David Maynard said:
I'm not sure what 'truly using' means unless you mean 'all the features'
but one could also argue you're not using 'all' the capability in 1024x640
mode with a 1600x1200 capable card.
But you are certainly using the adapter or else there would be no display
in any mode, crummy or not.
That isn't correct. The card is capable of 640x480 at any supported color
depth. It's XP that defaults to 800x600 minimum (and has that as the
'minimum' on the slider bar) but even that is not a 'hard' limit and can
be changed. Enable VGA mode, which is not 'safe mode'. It's VGA mode, in
living color, just like every Windows version prior to XP supported. And
so does XP, albeit a bit grudgingly.
Yes saying it was 'not' using it was not the proper terminology, its lamed
(seriously if its a decent card)although I know that even when you get a
screen size to work, you try to raise the color depth and wham!, screen goes
dark, black, and/or distorted. so you end up with not only 640x480 you get
256 or less color. Then there is the minimum refresh rate the adapter can
be adjusted to via the driver. My 7500 AIW will get to the point where the
LCD will work great. However the 128 rage AIW won't. Now you say that there
is no 'refresh' rate for LCD's. Yes this is true of today's models, however
this one does, and because I do not 'major' in LCDs, I cannot give the
reason,
but that's irrelevant any way. its an example of a low resolution monitor
in analog mode and an adapter that will not work no matter the
driver/setting. even in safe mode.
The card works at 640x480, the driver works at 640x480, and the monitor
works at 640x480. It's just that XP wants you to use 800x600, or higher,
so when you boot up 'normally' stubborn XP will set it no lower than it's
'recommended' 800x600 minimum resolution and you get a garbled display.
Hmmm I do not have that problem with XP home.....however is this caused
when you have all the bells and whistles enabled? I have a 640x480 setting
in display properties currently....But I do remember NOT having it in the
original setup/install.
Whether one wants to use XP in 640x480 mode is another matter but it's no
different than using Windows 2000 or Windows98 in 640x480 mode.
That's what I was saying ---usable, And even though you can get 640x480 most
of the menu windows and cascades go off the screen either at the top or the
bottom.
There can certainly be a conflict between supported refresh rates, such as
an old monitor supporting 800x600 but only 86/43Hz interlaced with a
display card that only does non-interlaced 60Hz minimum, but the one that
should always work is 640x480 60Hz.
That's why 'safe mode' uses it.at 16 bit or 256 color, and that sux for windows, and that's really where I
was going. Weird non standard hor-vert refresh rates....Packard bell 1500c
comes to mind. Some adapters just don't have the capability. Allot of 14 in
monitors of legacy design have this problem.
