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

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

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

=?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.)

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.

"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.)

"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.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.)

"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.)