Aspect ratio problem solved

I worked with Gateway tech support and got my problem solved. Turns out
the movement of the "knob" on the resolution setting was so fine that
the desired 1440 x 900 resolution was just between two 4:3 settings and
I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, but did
finally get it, and the system seems to have gone into wide screen mode
automatically. Since I am operating at the display's native resolution,
the image quality is a lot better, and circles are now circles! It was
a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
to select the proper resolution easily.

The graphics "card" does have a 1440 x 900 widescreen mode.

Don Stauffer wrote:
I worked with Gateway tech support and got my problem solved. Turns out
the movement of the "knob" on the resolution setting was so fine that
the desired 1440 x 900 resolution was just between two 4:3 settings and
I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, but did
finally get it, and the system seems to have gone into wide screen mode
automatically. Since I am operating at the display's native resolution,
the image quality is a lot better, and circles are now circles! It was
a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
to select the proper resolution easily.

The graphics "card" does have a 1440 x 900 widescreen mode.

And no doubt your 1024x768 images still have circular circles
and square squares too! As do images with other aspect
ratios... ;-)

BTW, I'll bet it is the *driver* that has a 1440x900 mode, not
the card. Monitors have modes and drivers have modes. The card
just has lots of RAM and divides it up differently for different
modes, depending on what the driver tells it. It might,
however, have a few optional "tricks" that it can do with some
modes and not with others, due to the way the RAM is
apportioned.

I doubt that any graphics card made in the past 12 or more years
is unable to handle 1440x900.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

Don Stauffer wrote:
I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, [...]
It was
a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
to select the proper resolution easily.

Assuming that you are running Windows, you do know that you can
customize the 'speed' of the mouse, right?
Go to Control Panel - Mouse - Pointer Options and adjust the Motion
Speed as desired.

jue

On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 09:52:16 -0500 Don Stauffer wrote:

| I worked with Gateway tech support and got my problem solved. Turns out
| the movement of the "knob" on the resolution setting was so fine that
| the desired 1440 x 900 resolution was just between two 4:3 settings and
| I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, but did
| finally get it, and the system seems to have gone into wide screen mode
| automatically. Since I am operating at the display's native resolution,
| the image quality is a lot better, and circles are now circles! It was
| a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
| to select the proper resolution easily.

This is why "device drivers" should not also try to be user interfaces.
There should be one well designed user interface and a standardized means
to communicate with the graphics card driver. Then the well designed user
interface would have things like a menu of standard modes, with the native
one for the monitor highlighted as native, and where the cards can handle
it, the option to manually type in exactly the size you want. Gimmicks
like a "knob" are silliness for serious people. They may be cute looking,
and some people might even like them. They could also be included. But a
straight forward wait to get the proper video mode needs to be present.
Note that both MS Windows and open source software like Gnome and KDE are
short on this kind of useability. I can't comment about Macs.

--
|WARNING: Due to extreme spam, googlegroups.com is blocked. Due to ignorance |
| by the abuse department, bellsouth.net is blocked. If you post to |
| Usenet from these places, find another Usenet provider ASAP. |
| Phil Howard KA9WGN (email for humans: first name in lower case at ipal.net) |

Jürgen Exner wrote:
Don Stauffer wrote:
I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, [...]
It was
a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
to select the proper resolution easily.

Assuming that you are running Windows, you do know that you can
customize the 'speed' of the mouse, right?
Go to Control Panel - Mouse - Pointer Options and adjust the Motion
Speed as desired.

jue

Yep, it is just that I did not realize those settings were "so close
together", in a sense.

Don Stauffer wrote:
I worked with Gateway tech support and got my problem solved. Turns out
the movement of the "knob" on the resolution setting was so fine that
the desired 1440 x 900 resolution was just between two 4:3 settings and
I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, but did
finally get it, and the system seems to have gone into wide screen mode
automatically. Since I am operating at the display's native resolution,
the image quality is a lot better, and circles are now circles! It was
a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
to select the proper resolution easily.

The graphics "card" does have a 1440 x 900 widescreen mode.

Just as I said. Set the WinXP resolution to the native screen rez...

--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

Don Stauffer wrote:
I worked with Gateway tech support and got my problem solved. Turns
out the movement of the "knob" on the resolution setting was so fine
that the desired 1440 x 900 resolution was just between two 4:3
settings and I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY
carefully, but did finally get it, and the system seems to have gone
into wide screen mode automatically. Since I am operating at the
display's native resolution, the image quality is a lot better, and
circles are now circles! It was a manual skills problem :-) These
old hands were just not handy enough to select the proper resolution
easily.
The graphics "card" does have a 1440 x 900 widescreen mode.

Thanks for letting us know, Don. My slideshow program includes a testcard
you can use for display aspect ratio checking.....

http://www.satsignal.eu/software/imaging.html#SlideShow

It needs my runtime Library Bundle as well. Glad to hear that the driver
does include the mode you need.

Cheers,
David

wrote:
[]
This is why "device drivers" should not also try to be user
interfaces.
There should be one well designed user interface and a standardized
means
to communicate with the graphics card driver. Then the well designed
user interface would have things like a menu of standard modes, with
the native one for the monitor highlighted as native, and where the
cards can handle
it, the option to manually type in exactly the size you want.
Gimmicks
like a "knob" are silliness for serious people. They may be cute
looking, and some people might even like them. They could also be
included. But a straight forward wait to get the proper video mode
needs to be present.
Note that both MS Windows and open source software like Gnome and KDE
are short on this kind of useability. I can't comment about Macs.

Phil,

On the most recent Dell I set up you just plugged in the monitor and the
system automatically selected the correct resolution. That system happens
to run Windows Vista. Very simple and straight-forward.

73,
David

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Don Stauffer wrote:
I worked with Gateway tech support and got my problem solved. Turns out
the movement of the "knob" on the resolution setting was so fine that
the desired 1440 x 900 resolution was just between two 4:3 settings and
I was overshooting. I had to move my trackball VERY carefully, but did
finally get it, and the system seems to have gone into wide screen mode
automatically. Since I am operating at the display's native resolution,
the image quality is a lot better, and circles are now circles! It was
a manual skills problem :-) These old hands were just not handy enough
to select the proper resolution easily.

The graphics "card" does have a 1440 x 900 widescreen mode.

And no doubt your 1024x768 images still have circular circles
and square squares too! As do images with other aspect
ratios... ;-)

BTW, I'll bet it is the *driver* that has a 1440x900 mode, not
the card. Monitors have modes and drivers have modes. The card
just has lots of RAM and divides it up differently for different
modes, depending on what the driver tells it. It might,
however, have a few optional "tricks" that it can do with some
modes and not with others, due to the way the RAM is
apportioned.

I doubt that any graphics card made in the past 12 or more years
is unable to handle 1440x900.


Tell me about it Floyd. I just picked up a 22" LG. The enclosed cd was
bent, really bent and non readable. I couldn't get a replacement,
couldn't set to the required 1680x1050 and text looked horrible in winxp
at closest correct aspect ratio, I forget the numbers.
I download the 'monitor' driver and manuals, installed and no
difference. At that point I thought I needed a graphics card, then just
for the heck of it I fired up Ubuntu 8 (I have multi-os setup.) Without
a wink or nod from me I could see the difference, Linux automatically
did whatever it had to do and set the resolution to 1680x1050. So I
figured the basic hardware had to be ok and downloaded latest Intel
Graphics driver which fixed the problem. In fact I show resolutions much
higher than the monitor will support.
I even got the cd to run. I put it between two stiff pieces of paper,
layed it on a cutting board and pressed with a hot iron. Thing read
perfect. The only thing I find a little puzzling is although text is
pretty good on both system, Ubuntu seems more crisp, probably a font
difference.
Dave Cohen

Dave Cohen wrote:
[]
The only thing I find a little puzzling is although text is
pretty good on both system, Ubuntu seems more crisp, probably a font
difference.
Dave Cohen

Windows has the ClearType function available, which will smooth the edges
of characters so that they no longer consist of well-defined dots, but are
smoother and easier to read - less aliased and more like good quality
printed text.

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/ClearTypeInfo.mspx

You may want to experiment with the ClearType settings on your Windows
system. There's a program you can download to adjust the settings:

http://www.microsoft.com/typography/...uner/tune.aspx

Cheers,
David