Jump to content

Resolution missing in XP that is in 98SE

jholt5638

By jholt5638
in Windows XP

 Share

Recommended Posts

jholt5638

jholt5638

Posted
Posted

I am dualbooting 98SE and XP. Under Windows 98SE I can set the resolution of my monitor to 1400x1050. Under Windows XP that resolution isn't listed by default but disabling hide settings this monitor can't display lists it but it sets it as a virtual resolution and the screen scrolls. The monitor is an Asus VH202T it has a max resolution of 1600x900 which does work on both 98 & XP but I prefer 1400x1050 for the extra horizontal screen space.  the video card is on board graphics Intel 845G. I have the latest drivers installed under both OS's. I've tried powerstrip aswell but the same result as using display properties. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

jholt5638

jholt5638

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Yeah, I've tried every possible setting including trying to manually adjust refresh and timings using powerstrip. No matter what I do I end up with a desktop that is greater than the physical screen so I have to move my mouse down and over to see the whole screen. Its like using the magnifier tool is the best way I can describe it. Under 98SE it just works. I've even tried looking for a inf for the monitor but Asus doesn't seem to have them and relies on the default PnP monitor inf in Windows  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

Posted
Posted

I have seen in XP before (on an EEE PC) where if you set a 4:3 resolution on a 16:9 display, the desktop will scroll. A better analogy for anyone who doesn't understand this behaviour, it is akin to using a VM or windowed RDP session where your own resolution is not tall enough to display the session at full screen.

 

I wonder what exactly is being displayed in Win98? Take a full screenshot in the Win98 and we can see what resolution it is actually using.

 

It doesn't make sense to say you have a wider display with a 4:3 resolution on Win98 than XP. It should be the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drugwash

Drugwash

Posted
Posted

The picture you uploaded is 1200 x 900, despite the control panel reporting 1400 x 1050. Hm, this is getting weird.

 

According to the manual, the monitor has both DVI and D-SUB input - which one are you actually using?

Regardless, try the other video output/input if your videocard allows.

If you have DVI-out on the motherboard you may also try using an adapter with a D-SUB cable to connect to monitor's VGA input.

Please make sure the video cables are in perfect shape - if possible, replace them at least temporarily.

 

All this is to test if any of your monitor's inputs fails to report the correct EDID data to the driver.

There's been some talk about the EDID issue even recently, you may search the board.

There's also at least a free application that can build an inf from the monitor's EDID.

The inf can then be manually edited if anything's wrong.

 

Of course, there's always the possibility that some fault lies in the video BIOS

If the motherboard has an AGP or PCI-e slot you may try with an external videocard.

If it works then you know it's the built-in video's fault.

 

Let's not forget the drivers - both 98 and XP ones - which may be the latest but not the best fit.

Try older driver versions, if possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jaclaz

jaclaz

Posted
Posted (edited)

The monitor is an Asus VH202T it has a max resolution of 1600x900 

No. :no:

Meaning that a LCD monitor has no "max resolution", it has only a "native resolution" or "recommended resolution", which sometimes is improperly referred to as "max resolution".

Any "display mode" but that one will be an "interpolated/calculated" one, in practice it will be less sharp and very likely (unless you keep a resolution with the same 1600:900 or 16:9 ratio) it will be "stretched" or "deformed".

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/159029-monitors-for-win98se/

http://www.cnet.com/products/asus-vh202t-p-lcd-monitor-20/specs/

 

You can use dumpedid:

http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dump_edid.html

to check the resolutions your monitor supports (still there will only be a "native" one, 1600x900 in your case that dumpedid calls "Maximum Resolution" ;))

 

jaclaz

Edited by jaclaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drugwash

Drugwash

Posted
Posted

There's a multiple-model manual here containing technical details towards the end. Not of much use, in my opinion.

 

1400 x1050 reported by the control panel is a clean 4/3 ratio.

1200 x 900 of the real screenshot is also a clean 4/3 ratio.

 

The fact that the control panel reports a resolution while in reality it is a different one could be anybody's fault but I'm inclined to point to the drivers who may use a built-in flat panel scaling capability that I've seen in NVIDIA's drivers. If such option exists, it should be set to use display's built-in scaling, not driver's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jholt5638

jholt5638

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I am using the VGA connector, don't have a DVI video card at the moment to test with. The image is only 1200x900? This is getting even more confusing than before Windows Paint says 1400x1050, the monitor's internal menu say 1680x1050, and now you guys are saying the images are only 1200x900

 

Windows 98 Paint showing the image properties as 1400x1050

post-369107-0-41442000-1449579685_thumb.

 

Windows XP Explorer showing 1400x1050 as the image size aswell

post-369107-0-49540000-1449579660_thumb.

post-369107-0-83897400-1449580049_thumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jholt5638

jholt5638

Posted
  • Author
Posted (edited)

 

The monitor is an Asus VH202T it has a max resolution of 1600x900 

No. :no:

Meaning that a LCD monitor has no "max resolution", it has only a "native resolution" or "recommended resolution", which sometimes is improperly referred to as "max resolution".

Any "display mode" but that one will be an "interpolated/calculated" one, in practice it will be less sharp and very likely (unless you keep a resolution with the same 1600:900 or 16:9 ratio) it will be "stretched" or "deformed".

See:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/159029-monitors-for-win98se/

http://www.cnet.com/products/asus-vh202t-p-lcd-monitor-20/specs/

 

You can use dumpedid:

http://www.nirsoft.net/utils/dump_edid.html

to check the resolutions your monitor supports (still there will only be a "native" one, 1600x900 in your case that dumpedid calls "Maximum Resolution" ;))

 

jaclaz

 

THis is the output  from dumpedid

DumpEDID v1.05Copyright (c) 2006 - 2015 Nir SoferWeb site: http://www.nirsoft.net*****************************************************************Active                   : YesRegistry Key             : DISPLAY\ACI20A4\4&ec303c9&0&80861100&00&02Monitor Name             : ASUS VH202Serial Number            : ABLMTF072889Manufacture Week         : 46 / 2010ManufacturerID           : 26884 (0x6904)ProductID                : 8356 (0x20A4)Serial Number (Numeric)  : 72889 (0x00011CB9)EDID Version             : 1.3Display Gamma            : 2.20Vertical Frequency       : 55 - 75 HzHorizontal Frequency     : 30 - 85 KHzMaximum Image Size       : 44 X 25 cm (19.9 Inch)Maximum Resolution       : 1600 X 900Support Standby Mode     : NoSupport Suspend Mode     : NoSupport Low-Power Mode   : YesSupport Default GTF      : NoDigital                  : NoSupported Display Modes  :     720 X  400  70 Hz     640 X  480  60 Hz     640 X  480  67 Hz     640 X  480  72 Hz     640 X  480  75 Hz     800 X  600  56 Hz     800 X  600  60 Hz     800 X  600  72 Hz     800 X  600  75 Hz     832 X  624  75 Hz    1024 X  768  60 Hz    1024 X  768  70 Hz    1024 X  768  75 Hz    1152 X  864  75 Hz    1600 X  900  60 Hz*****************************************************************
Edited by jholt5638
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Drugwash

Drugwash

Posted
Posted

Well, I'm sure something tampered with your first screenshot because what I saved here on my HDD is 93,538 bytes while the size seen in one of your later screenshots (in MS Paint) shows 132,886 bytes. If the board software does this automatically, this is very bad. :(

 

post-99477-0-62671800-1449582361_thumb.j

 

OK, now that we figured this out and also seeing the EDID report, I can say that Win98SE is much more tolerant with respect to unsupported resolutions, while XP is strict to a T and will not allow any unsupported resolution other than in pan-and-scan mode.

So I guess you'll have to find an XP driver that can force a non-standard full screen resolution.

Unfortunately I have no experience with Intel drivers so can't help here. Hopefully someone else can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tripredacus

Tripredacus

Posted
Posted

The Win98 desktop screenshots you uploaded are compressed and not pixel perfect. You can easily see this by looking along the icon or window edges for artifacts. The images are being resized at some point and the ones you attached to your post are not helping. It could be that the forum is resizing them. :unsure:

Try uploading to Imgur instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...