>And yet I CAN get 1440 x 900 with the VGA connection; that is how I
>am running it, at that resolution. That is what is so confusing.
Why would you assume that the two would be the same? The analog circuits
can easily interpolate data that is not really there. The digital
circuits won't exceed
At 8:42 PM -0400 7/23/08, Tom Piwowar wrote:
>That sounds good, Tom, except that the native 1440 x 900 is NOT
available with the DVI cable. Wouldn't you expect that one to be
there?
Only if that was a setting the card was capable of. Considering the age
of your card I'm not surprised it does
>That sounds good, Tom, except that the native 1440 x 900 is NOT
>available with the DVI cable. Wouldn't you expect that one to be
>there?
Only if that was a setting the card was capable of. Considering the age
of your card I'm not surprised it doesn't.
***
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 6:48 PM, Roger D. Parish <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> At 5:23 PM -0400 7/23/08, you wrote:
>
> When you use the VGA cable the LCD is connected to the Mac via an A2D
>> converter and mimics an analog multi-sync monitor. So the Mac;s System
>> Preferences present you with a
At 5:23 PM -0400 7/23/08, you wrote:
>The LCD has a native resolution of 1440 x 900.
However, when connected via the DVI cable, that
resolution was not available in the display
preferences, only 1280 x 960 and one or two
other, smaller resolutions (I didn't write them
down; sorry). When using
>The LCD has a native resolution of 1440 x 900.
>However, when connected via the DVI cable, that
>resolution was not available in the display
>preferences, only 1280 x 960 and one or two
>other, smaller resolutions (I didn't write them
>down; sorry). When using the VGA cable, however,
>I have
From what I have read, either the cable is bad or the monitor is. I
suggest trying another cable and returning the monitor if that doesn't
fix the problem.
db
Tony B wrote:
I guess you meant to say "smaller". I've seen people do this, usually
those with poorer eyesight, but with LCD technolo
Using your terminology I guess.
But in this case that is not true. When I set it for the native
resolution it was not sharp or clear. The text looked jagged and
just did not look right.
(My eye sight is not 20-20 but it is also not poor I do wear glasses
to correct it.)
At the non native
I guess you meant to say "smaller". I've seen people do this, usually
those with poorer eyesight, but with LCD technology it just isn't
true. By setting an LCD to a lower resolution, the text looks larger
to them, so they mistakenly think the picture is clearer. But it
isn't.
First, know that elec
To me it would be a limitation of the video drivers to set the proper
resolution.
I actually have my 19" Samsung set at a larger resolution (1024x768)
than it's native and it is far clearer in that resolution than it is
in the native resolution (1280x960).
Stewart
At 10:50 PM 7/22/2008, yo
At 10:57 PM -0400 7/22/08, Tom Piwowar wrote:
>Get a video card with a digital output, and use the digital cable to
connect the LCD monitor to the video card. The color fringing is almost
certainly caused in the part of the circuitry where the signal is analog.
Could even be caused by a poor
11 matches
Mail list logo
