My original post that I was replying to (along to VanguardLH who had
replied to it) I'm not sure if you see that original post since it's 2 weeks
old by now but I have it flagged so still see it... anyway to your post
comments I replied in line below.
"choro" wrote in message news:wXKEn.1$dR1.0@newsfe25.ams2
>
> What you say is very interesting particularly for me as I have hopes of
> getting a larger screen than my 22" LG monitor which I find quite
> satisfactory except for its vertical resolution. It is an 1680x1050
> screen which I can't use on my old faithful 10 year old computer with
> its AVG graphics card which is not so easy to replace now as presumably
> all the new graphics cards are of the PCIe type.
>
> Decided to build a new desktop when I realized my old AMD Thunderbird
> CPU is not capable of supporting a decent web camera for which you need
> a more modern chip. I have attached my old 22" LG monitor to the new
> desktop I am building but I get ghosting presumably either due to the
> KVM box which can't support such high resolutions OR the older type D15
> port. No DVI port on the LG, you see. 1440x900 is the max resolution I
> can get using my old AGP equipped old computer. 1680x1050 which is the
> native resolution of the 22" LG screen overfills the screen for some
> reason and thus becomes completely unusable. Any out there who can solve
> this problem for me?
About your 1680x1050 overfilling the screen, you're right, and my 23"
widescreen (16:9) Acer did the same thing - if it wasn't for that, the
1680x1050 resolution would have been a second best choice and would have
solved my original problem because it displays everything a little bit
larger (even without changing your Desktop vertical capacity icon count) and
renders all fonts whether within DPI Aware reach or not, just fine; and you
don't need to use ClearType if you didn't want to.
I surmise this 1680x1050 overfilling 22"/23" screens is because of the
(undesirable technicalities) physical size awkward proportionalities of the
actual Display Area of a 22"/23" screen, most graphics cards (I use a nVidia
6600GT) regardless if on WXP/Vista/Win7, or drivers used, still overfills
these size screens vertically as well, and so as you say is unusable, but if
it was usable and fit (it can't because of actual display area
technicalities) the 1680x1050 is a very nice alternative for those who have
less that perfect eyesight, or just like it a little bigger/bolder; again I
could not use 1680x1050 on that 23" either so had no choice. (The short
answer - use a 25")
The Great news is that using a widescreen 24.6", better yet 25.5", or 27"
fixes that. As previously listed the actual Display Area of the screen which
is conducive to and works fine with 1680x1050 resolutions, which most decent
graphics cards in the last 5 years do support it as well, and so nice.
....but better yet these screen sizes usually come with a recommended
resolution of 1920 x1080 which is better yet across the board for quality
display, although yes displays visually a bit smaller, but as noted these
larger LCD sizes come with corresponding larger Pixel Pitch which dissolving
that result nicely - and your end result is better quality picture.
> Anyway, on the new computer I am building 1680x1050 resolution works OK
> except for the ghosting but when I get the time I will hook the two up
> using a DVI cable with a D15 adaptor. We'll see! Will it work? Will it
> work connected via the KVM box? That I still have to find out.
> Unfortunately I have got so much cabling (4 comps hooked up via the KVM!
> A wiring nightmare which makes rearranging the wiring more or less
> impossible and I have to add that I am not exactly young and athletic!).
> It is obvious that I will have to get someone to help me out to pass the
> cable down back of the desk while I grab it from under the desk and pull
> it before I connect it to the new computer sitting below the desk. Are
> you still with me? ;-) I tried pushing the cable through behind the desk
> right against the wall and I couldn't. Can't pull the desk forward. It
> is too heavily laden with massive oldie worldie speakers. But you should
> hear the quality of the sound I get through my dedicated big Yamaha
> stereo amplifier. Out of this world. More or less true audiophilie
> sounds! When I turn them on I am in heaven. This is my Inn of the Sixth
> Happiness!!!
> So according to you I should be looking for a 25 or even a 26" 1920x1050
No, I said 1920x1080 of which I think you meant that, I hope
> screen. I say preferably a 1920x1200 screen but I hear they are
No I don't think you mean 1920x1200 either; both you're mentions are
non-standard nor V/H balanced proportionately, which is imperative.
Again most widescreen that are at least 25" ish screens these days come with
recommended resolutions 1920x1080 which is standard and proportionate, also
most all these 25" ish (again not 22" or 23") work just fine with 1680x1050
resolution if needed and that's fine for those who want that, although using
their default @ 1920x1080 is finer yet
> exorbitantly expensive compared to the x1050 ones. But it is the only
> way to see the north and the south poles at the same time, if you know
> what I mean. ;-) ;-)
No not exorbitant prices, and like all electronics get outdated quickly
because of technology advancements, and so we'll call yesterdays 'day old'
electronics, and those prices always come down... for instance today on
25" monitors you can find them for less than $300. I just bought my 25"
widescreen monitor and it even came with a HDTV Tuner for heavens sake, the
display is true HD 1080p @ 1920x1080, etc, built in speakers even, and was
just $299 ...very very nice. The 27" of same was $399 ..but I'm not rich
either so drew the line for a 25" and will never look back to my last LCD
19" standard (4:3)
> I must be in a good mood tonight. I have already teased one or two
> people on the Usenet but this is serious stuff. I mean the monitor
> screen issue.
> And I realize that if I want to maintain the connection of all four
> computers to the same screen, I will probably end up having to buy a new
> KVM switch either with DVI or better still HDMI facilities.
>
> Problems never cease for those who are never happy with what they have
> already got. They always want something better.
>
> I couldn't help thinking whether this is the basic problem of society
> these days what with marriages breaking up because people always are
> after juicier pussies or bigger and bigger shafts.
Nah, not what I see and attract around me, in my world anyway.
True love (as true as can in the moment anyway) and their marriages are
based on maturity and all things related to it, in that mindset transcends
all the things you mention in your, fresh ditty
o
Anyway, my posts purposed was to close my original post with the resolve.
Again I suggest anyone coming from a 19" standard 4:3 monitor and moves to a
widescreen - don't get anything size less than a 25" or you will not be
happy on many levels. A 25" widescreen has the same vertical display height
as a 19" and so remember that! ..however, the width difference of course
will be larger, and that extra 16:9 widescreen estate is perfect for
watching any of today's current movies which of course are made for 16:9
widescreen viewing.
Also for everyday computer use, one will soon realize the widescreen format
benefits for that as well - after a week with it, you will never look back.
over & out
best
>
> Me, I am just a computer freak! Not that computers are my only weakness,
> mind you but that's another story and has got no relevance in this
> newsgroup.
>
> ;-) ;-) ;-)
> --
> choro
> *****
>>
>>
>> "George" wrote in message
>> news:eod5khk3KHA.5820@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl
>>> Moving from the 1280x1024 for standard LCD 19" etc screens
>>> resolution, to the 1920x1080 which comes with 23" etc WideScreen
>>> monitors these days, we know the same settings of font size
>>> displayed we were use to, will now show slightly smaller - and
>>> that's fine. First, we understand about font size, clear type, and dpi
>>> adjustments. Yes we know for higher resolutions being sure to turn on
>>> and adjust ClearType which solves readability problems just fine
>>> across the board in every nook and cranny, Except, inside many
>>> non-microsoft programs where the OS's control over the font size,
>>> clear type, or dpi adjustments in the non-menu areas 'cannot' reach
>>> there - is specifically what I am talking about today - The problem
>>> is the font displayed in these programs (non-menu) areas is harder
>>> to read because it's a little too skinny and smaller - again
>>> everywhere else is just fine. We know that going forward software
>>> developers automatically write
>>> their softwares fonts to be easily readable in higher resolutions,
>>> but many of our slightly older programs we still want to use did
>>> not, and that's where the problem is seen whether I'm using WXP,
>>> Vista, or Windows7 - the issue is exactly the same. (The issue is
>>> NOT a VGA, DVI, or HDMI connection issue, or Video Card issue, or a
>>> Brightness or Contrast etc adjustment problem)
>>> ***
>>> The question is, how can you get the ClearType setting to also have
>>> its effect on fonts which exist inside of these programs non-menu
>>> areas that are currently not in the OS's control?
>>>
>>> Is there another way?