If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an
integrated intel chipset(which is junk) ps i still have the same problem with it crashing when i go to play any game that uses directx(igxpdx32.dll) is there somthing like nvemulate but for intel so i can use opengl |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
You can only select a video resolution that your monitor and graphics
system support. To see what resolutions are supported: Control Panel Display Settings. If your computer has an LCD monitor, the video resolution should be the same as the monitor's native resolution; any other setting will look fuzzy. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Justin wrote: how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an integrated intel chipset(which is junk) ps i still have the same problem with it crashing when i go to play any game that uses directx(igxpdx32.dll) is there somthing like nvemulate but for intel so i can use opengl |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
You can only select a video resolution that your monitor and graphics
system support. To see what resolutions are supported: Control Panel Display Settings. If your computer has an LCD monitor, the video resolution should be the same as the monitor's native resolution; any other setting will look fuzzy. --- Leonard Grey Errare humanum est Justin wrote: how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an integrated intel chipset(which is junk) ps i still have the same problem with it crashing when i go to play any game that uses directx(igxpdx32.dll) is there somthing like nvemulate but for intel so i can use opengl |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
=?Utf-8?B?SnVzdGlu?= wrote
in : how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an integrated intel chipset(which is junk) Got a 3 year LCD Bravia 40" like I do? The closest you can get with the Intel chip (I have same) is 1280 x 768. Not bad - a 43 pixel black bar per side is almost invisible. But the Bravia looks like **** when showing movies. You need a CRT for that. MAYBE your chip is newer and DOES have a better resolution - just go to control panel/Intel video properties and search for all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate must be 60 Hz. ps i still have the same problem with it crashing when i go to play any game that uses directx(igxpdx32.dll) is there somthing like nvemulate but for intel so i can use opengl I don't know, uninstall and reinstall DirectX - maybe an older version - and Google - DirectX's main claim to fame is that every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
In message , thanatoid
writes: =?Utf-8?B?SnVzdGlu?= wrote in : how do i set my peice of c*** computer' s resolution to 1366 x 768 it has an integrated intel chipset(which is junk) Got a 3 year LCD Bravia 40" like I do? The closest you can get with the Intel chip (I have same) is 1280 x 768. Not bad - a 43 pixel black bar per side is almost invisible. But the Bravia looks like **** when showing movies. You need a CRT for that. MAYBE your chip is newer and DOES have a better resolution - just go to control panel/Intel video properties and search for You _may_ have to tell your system you have an unknown monitor as well (unless you can find a driver for the actual monitor in question); it may otherwise assume the monitor it thinks you're using isn't capable of some resolutions, and not offer them. all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate must be 60 Hz. Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. The main point is that you don't need an unrealistically high refresh rate to reduce flicker, since refresh rate and flicker aren't related on an LCD, as it has an independent backlight. Using a higher rate will give smoother movement in applications capable of taking advantage (mostly games), though may get to blurring depending on the monitor; unless using such applications, all higher refresh rates will do is make the processor and/or graphics card work harder and thus run hotter. If the monitor is actually designed as a TV, then it may indeed only do 60 Hz (50 Hz in half of the world, though I suspect modern TVs can handle either), though I suspect ones with a VGA or HDMI input can handle higher rates, though not necessarily gain any benefit from doing so. [] version - and Google - DirectX's main claim to fame is that every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if it's made your machine truly inoperable!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: In message , thanatoid writes: SNIP You _may_ have to tell your system you have an unknown monitor as well (unless you can find a driver for the actual monitor in question); it may otherwise assume the monitor it thinks you're using isn't capable of some resolutions, and not offer them. I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate must be 60 Hz. Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. SNIP DirectX's main claim to fame is that every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if it's made your machine truly inoperable!) Of course it isn't. It's a MS product. But thankfully, mostly just gamers and people who "have to have the latest version of everything MS makes" use it. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: In message , thanatoid writes: SNIP You _may_ have to tell your system you have an unknown monitor as well (unless you can find a driver for the actual monitor in question); it may otherwise assume the monitor it thinks you're using isn't capable of some resolutions, and not offer them. I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate must be 60 Hz. Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. SNIP DirectX's main claim to fame is that every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if it's made your machine truly inoperable!) Of course it isn't. It's a MS product. But thankfully, mostly just gamers and people who "have to have the latest version of everything MS makes" use it. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
A specific monitor .inf can allow nonstandard resolutions so long as the
driver and hardware are capable of them. Sometimes a driver update will also allow more resolutions. No display has a 50Hz vertical rate. The standard values are 43,60,73,75,85 or 100Hz. LCDs typically support 60 or 75Hz only, but this is of no significance as unlike a CRT a low rate doesn't induce flicker. "thanatoid" wrote: I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
A specific monitor .inf can allow nonstandard resolutions so long as the
driver and hardware are capable of them. Sometimes a driver update will also allow more resolutions. No display has a 50Hz vertical rate. The standard values are 43,60,73,75,85 or 100Hz. LCDs typically support 60 or 75Hz only, but this is of no significance as unlike a CRT a low rate doesn't induce flicker. "thanatoid" wrote: I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
In message , thanatoid
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in : [] I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. I didn't say that definitely was the case, just thought it might be. I've certainly - in the past - used monitors that wouldn't do 1024x768, for example, and others that would only do so at low refresh rates; I had assumed that (assuming there is actually a driver file for such monitors), if you told your system that's what you were using, it wouldn't let you use them, since in a (very) few cases doing so might actually damage the monitor. all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate must be 60 Hz. Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're This is an early 15" LCD (when they dropped below 300 pounds! These days, you have to hunt hard to even _find_ one that small!); IIRR, it actually recommends no _more_ than 75, but I haven't been into its box/manual for some time. (Samsung, IIRR.) in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. Hmm. I don't think even our HD transmissions are anywhere near 200 Hz frame or field rate, or any plans to be so; even with oodles of compression, the bandwidth isn't available. I think they're 50p (as opposed to SD being 50i); I don't have any HD kit yet. As to whether the difference would be visible, then for both TV and computer use, it would only be visible on fast-moving subject matter, and there only fleetingly - in the days of tube cameras, blur used to work fine for conveying such motion, though nowadays (especially on the technically-execrable Top Gear motoring programme) there seems to be a tendency to use the shortest "shutter" speeds they can, thus making multiple images noticeble in a fast driveby. But we're getting into uk.tech.broadcast territory here ... (I've just realised I'm replying to a thanatoid post in an XP newsgroup; so your transition to the dark side has started, though as I said earlier XP is becoming lighter now with Vista and 7!) SNIP DirectX's main claim to fame is that every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if it's made your machine truly inoperable!) Of course it isn't. It's a MS product. But thankfully, mostly just gamers and people who "have to have the latest version of everything MS makes" use it. Indeed. (Though sometimes you have to use the latest version of something, not necessarily DirectX, to view some YouTube videos, even if you're not a must-have-latest sort of person.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue. |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
In message , thanatoid
writes: "J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in : [] I have NEVER seen ANY differnce in control or operformance between "generic monitor" and the specific model in use. I didn't say that definitely was the case, just thought it might be. I've certainly - in the past - used monitors that wouldn't do 1024x768, for example, and others that would only do so at low refresh rates; I had assumed that (assuming there is actually a driver file for such monitors), if you told your system that's what you were using, it wouldn't let you use them, since in a (very) few cases doing so might actually damage the monitor. all modes. Don't forget for LCD monitors the refresh rate must be 60 Hz. Not so: I have one that recommends 75, IIRR. Never seen THAT figure - and I have an Argos catalogue! You're This is an early 15" LCD (when they dropped below 300 pounds! These days, you have to hunt hard to even _find_ one that small!); IIRR, it actually recommends no _more_ than 75, but I haven't been into its box/manual for some time. (Samsung, IIRR.) in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. Hmm. I don't think even our HD transmissions are anywhere near 200 Hz frame or field rate, or any plans to be so; even with oodles of compression, the bandwidth isn't available. I think they're 50p (as opposed to SD being 50i); I don't have any HD kit yet. As to whether the difference would be visible, then for both TV and computer use, it would only be visible on fast-moving subject matter, and there only fleetingly - in the days of tube cameras, blur used to work fine for conveying such motion, though nowadays (especially on the technically-execrable Top Gear motoring programme) there seems to be a tendency to use the shortest "shutter" speeds they can, thus making multiple images noticeble in a fast driveby. But we're getting into uk.tech.broadcast territory here ... (I've just realised I'm replying to a thanatoid post in an XP newsgroup; so your transition to the dark side has started, though as I said earlier XP is becoming lighter now with Vista and 7!) SNIP DirectX's main claim to fame is that every release I remember has had a disclaimer that it "may make you machine inoperable, in which case you should go back to the previous version". Good ol' MS. I suspect the going back isn't easy, either. (Especially if it's made your machine truly inoperable!) Of course it isn't. It's a MS product. But thankfully, mostly just gamers and people who "have to have the latest version of everything MS makes" use it. Indeed. (Though sometimes you have to use the latest version of something, not necessarily DirectX, to view some YouTube videos, even if you're not a must-have-latest sort of person.) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
In message , Anteaus
writes: [] No display has a 50Hz vertical rate. The standard values are 43,60,73,75,85 I've certainly seen monitors with a 50 rate, though that may have been in the days before VGA; we had at least one (computer system) where you could choose - I couldn't see the difference, but at least one of my colleagues found the 60 much easier to view. (The 43 always seemed an oddball; I presume it was a way of getting higher resolutions without upping the actual dot clock, i. e. pixel rate. ISTR it tended to be an interlaced display too, which doesn't work as well with computer displays which have significant amounts if information that are different between the two fields.) or 100Hz. LCDs typically support 60 or 75Hz only, but this is of no significance as unlike a CRT a low rate doesn't induce flicker. Certainly _less_ significance, for that reason; however, if the material is actually being _updated_ (generated) at the higher rate, rather than just _refreshed_, then you will, in theory at least, get smoother motion. I suspect this applies mainly to games, since 50 (or 60 in the other half of the world) has been acceptable for 80 years or so. (In fact an _update_ rate of 24 or 25 has been, in the normally-assumed-higher-quality world of the cinema; they use a double-bladed shutter to give a flicker rate of twice the frame rate. And even there that speed was only used to make the film move fast enough to give a usable soundtrack: 16 or 18 [standard 8, 9.5, and 16 mm, and super 8] were adequate in silent times. And very low update - as opposed to refresh - rates are still used in news reporting.) [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
In message , Anteaus
writes: [] No display has a 50Hz vertical rate. The standard values are 43,60,73,75,85 I've certainly seen monitors with a 50 rate, though that may have been in the days before VGA; we had at least one (computer system) where you could choose - I couldn't see the difference, but at least one of my colleagues found the 60 much easier to view. (The 43 always seemed an oddball; I presume it was a way of getting higher resolutions without upping the actual dot clock, i. e. pixel rate. ISTR it tended to be an interlaced display too, which doesn't work as well with computer displays which have significant amounts if information that are different between the two fields.) or 100Hz. LCDs typically support 60 or 75Hz only, but this is of no significance as unlike a CRT a low rate doesn't induce flicker. Certainly _less_ significance, for that reason; however, if the material is actually being _updated_ (generated) at the higher rate, rather than just _refreshed_, then you will, in theory at least, get smoother motion. I suspect this applies mainly to games, since 50 (or 60 in the other half of the world) has been acceptable for 80 years or so. (In fact an _update_ rate of 24 or 25 has been, in the normally-assumed-higher-quality world of the cinema; they use a double-bladed shutter to give a flicker rate of twice the frame rate. And even there that speed was only used to make the film move fast enough to give a usable soundtrack: 16 or 18 [standard 8, 9.5, and 16 mm, and super 8] were adequate in silent times. And very low update - as opposed to refresh - rates are still used in news reporting.) [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf ** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously outdated thoughts on PCs. ** Hit any user to continue. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: In message , thanatoid writes: SNIP in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. Hmm. I don't think even our HD transmissions are anywhere near 200 Hz frame or field rate It's purely a marketing gimmick having nothing to do with the signal as it enters the monitor. There MAY be a minor improvement with 200 Hz Vs. 50Hz or 240Hz Vs. 60Hz but frankly I am skeptical, although I have no doubt there WILL be LCD ****boxes with 3200Hz refresh rates just like there will be 13.3 surround sound systems - sooner or later. Indeed. (Though sometimes you have to use the latest version of something, not necessarily DirectX, to view some YouTube videos, even if you're not a must-have-latest sort of person.) Well, we were talking about DirectX. Of course my affinity (and yours) for older (and better ) software has to take into consideration minor adjustments (or temporaryy major adjustments) due to new technology, assuming there is one that is actually worth anything. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
1366 x 768
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" wrote in
: In message , thanatoid writes: SNIP in the UK. It's 50HZ there, or 200 or 400, or possibly 3200 in a year or two. Like ANY difference will be visible. Hmm. I don't think even our HD transmissions are anywhere near 200 Hz frame or field rate It's purely a marketing gimmick having nothing to do with the signal as it enters the monitor. There MAY be a minor improvement with 200 Hz Vs. 50Hz or 240Hz Vs. 60Hz but frankly I am skeptical, although I have no doubt there WILL be LCD ****boxes with 3200Hz refresh rates just like there will be 13.3 surround sound systems - sooner or later. Indeed. (Though sometimes you have to use the latest version of something, not necessarily DirectX, to view some YouTube videos, even if you're not a must-have-latest sort of person.) Well, we were talking about DirectX. Of course my affinity (and yours) for older (and better ) software has to take into consideration minor adjustments (or temporaryy major adjustments) due to new technology, assuming there is one that is actually worth anything. -- There are only two classifications of disk drives: Broken drives and those that will break later. - Chuck Armstrong (This one I think, http://www.cleanreg.com/, not the ball player. But who knows. I can't remember where I got the quote. But it's true.) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|