Resolution missing in XP that is in 98SE

[jholt5638]

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.

Try uploading to Imgur instead.

Or both the 7zip has the original 24bit bitmap

http://imgur.com/9s6kbyD

 

win98.7z

Edited December 8, 2015 by jholt5638

[Drugwash]

Try using DTD Calculator.

It can be found here:

http://www.clevertec.co.uk/productsfree.htm

 

Make SURE you read and understand the instructions/howto:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/947830-custom-resolution-tool-intel-graphics-easier-overscan-correction.html

 

jaclaz

I wouldn't call them very clever as long as they use .NET, but that's just a personal opinion.

 

Or both the 7zip has the original 24bit bitmap

http://imgur.com/9s6kbyD

 

win98.7z

 

The image in the 7-zip archive is clearly 1400x1050. So definitely something interfered with the image size attached to the board but that's not even important anymore.

Problem was and remains making XP allow a non-standard resolution of 1400x1050 in full screen, which requires manually overriding the EDID.

 

The tool referred to by jaclaz may do the job but I, for one, wouldn't install .NET just to run that thing. To each their own though.   Good luck!

[jaclaz]

The tool referred to by jaclaz may do the job but I, for one, wouldn't install .NET just to run that thing. To each their own though.   Good luck!

 

Neither would jaclaz, rest assured, but the alternative ENTECH stuff:

http://www.msfn.org/board/topic/174263-strange-mouse-behavior-on-an-lcd-monitor/

 

seemingly doesn't work properly with Intel boards.

 

However nothing prevents anyone to manually calculate the Registry values:

https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/custom-resolutions-on-intel-graphics

 

jaclaz

Edited December 8, 2015 by jaclaz

[Drugwash]

Now we're talkin'!

 

There's one particular quote în the last link's article that I'd like to emphasize:

 

Sometimes the EDID reports a good DTD and we insert it into the .INF file but it doesn't end up in the list of allowed resolutions after we go through the driver install.  This can happen for one of two reasons: the information we put in the .INF is not making it to the registry at all (some kind of setup glitch), or that particular resolution is explicitly prohibited in the VideoBIOS by the motherboard vendor.  I'm not sure why motherboard/laptop vendors would do this, but there's no question they do it, especially in laptops.

 

Considering in this particular situation Win98SE can do that resolution I'd say we're out of the woods regarding a bad video BIOS, but for anyone else having a similar issue with another chipset/video this may be useful information.

 

That article has a lot of technical information that's quite hard to hack together even by a knowledgeable person. I wonder what happened to old-school programmers that had the WinAPI at the tip of their fingers…

[jholt5638]

Apparently my graphics chip is one generation too old for the DTD Calculator(already had dotnet installed for nlite) and the information contained in the link. At this point looks like I may have to just deal with not having that resolution in XP. Unless anyone else has some ideas.  I spend most of my time in 98 anyhow. XP is basically just websites that don't like FF 3.6/FF 10-ESR

[jholt5638]

I wanted to see if this problem was a driver issue or an OS one so I installled Windows 2000 Professional SP4. Under Win2K I am able to set the resolution to 1400x1050 with no problems. Something changed between 2K and XP in the way the OS handles unsupported resolutions. I think I will just stick with 2K+USP5 and the BWC kernel should run everything I need with a small footprint