Monitor questions

"void" <void.DeleteThis@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fepl4l2pgtyl000@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and a
>17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try 1024x768,
>everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a larger LCD
>monitor.

> First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
> G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
> If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
> monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.

LCD's don't worry about refresh... 60Hz is fine.

> Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
> what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
> want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
> my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
> the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
> both sides of the image? (That would be better.)

I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions. Have you
got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming that you're
running Windows.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

Noozer wrote:
>>Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>>what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>>want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>>my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
>>the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
>>both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
>
>I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions. Have
>you got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming that you're
>running Windows.

My drivers are close to the latest version, but not the latest version.
When I re-installed my OS a couple years ago, I noticed an issue with the
latest driver. A Matrox rep on their support forum (which is sadly no
longer available) said that a previous version of the driver did not have
the issue, so I've been using that one since.

But I think that I will get a non-widescreen monitor. I have some games
that only support non-widescreen resolutions, so I think they'll look
stretched on a widescreen monitor.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

"void" <void.TakeThisOut@no.spam.com> wrote:
>> Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>> what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>> want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>> my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
>> the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
>> both sides of the image? (That would be better.)

Noozer wrote:
> I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions. Have you
> got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming that you're
> running Windows.

Just wanted to add something you both probably already know, but that I
recently found out:

Some display adapters present a list of resolutions that is sensitive to
what monitor is attached. So, it's entirely possibly that your card
does not appear to support widescreen resolutions because it knows your
monitor is *not* widescreen, and does not present those options.

It had always made sense to me that could be done, but it was only
recently that I actually saw it in action.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

void wrote:
> Noozer wrote:
>>> Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen
>>> resolutions, what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD
>>> monitor? (I might want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the
>>> capability when I upgrade my computer.) Would the image stretch
>>> horizontally so that it fit all of the screen? (That would be
>>> bad.) Or would there be empty black space on both sides of the
>>> image? (That would be better.)
>>
>> I can't say for sure, but the G400 should support wide resolutions.
>> Have you got the latest drivers from Matrox installed? I'm assuming
>> that you're running Windows.
>
> My drivers are close to the latest version, but not the latest version.
> When I re-installed my OS a couple years ago, I noticed an issue with
> the latest driver. A Matrox rep on their support forum (which is sadly
> no longer available) said that a previous version of the driver did not
> have the issue, so I've been using that one since.
>
> But I think that I will get a non-widescreen monitor. I have some games
> that only support non-widescreen resolutions, so I think they'll look
> stretched on a widescreen monitor.
>

Check page 3 here. It looks like the connectors are not of equal capability.
Maybe you're plugged into the secondary one ?

http://www.matrox.com/graphics/media/common/products/tech_info/pdfs/g4...chip_sp

And if you change video cards, don't forget to remove the Matrox drivers,
before you shut down and change hardware.

Paul
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 18:44:45 -0600, "void"
<void.TakeThisOut@no.spam.com> wrote:

>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
>a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
>1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
>larger LCD monitor.

??

1024x768 is not bad on a 17", but if you want a larger
monitor then by all means do it.

>
>First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
>G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.

False. Your G400 supports higher than 60Hz at 1280x1024. I
have no idea where you got 1280x968, maybe you meant
1280x960.

Your G400 supports at least 85Hz at that resolution, and
also at higher resolutions.



>If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
>monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.

With an LCD, you can run at 60Hz without the issues of
flicker present on a CRT.

However, there is little reason to try for a monitor that
supports 1280sx1024. Get a 1600x1200 monitor. Not to be
confused with 1680x1050 widescreen, there are still a few
1600x1200 monitors in the market and you would be wise to
buy one of those now, not waiting till there aren't around
anymore. Your video card will definitely support it, even
an older G200 I have was running at that resolution.


>
>Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
>the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
>both sides of the image? (That would be better.)

yes it would stretch and that would be an image degradation.
Some find it more disagreeable than others but generally I'd
have to say you should avoid doing that, it is a worse
result.

There will be empty space if your video driver supports it,
but AFAIK, the old G400 driver does not. There may be a
Matrox Tech Support Teak tool that lets you set custom
resolutions if your driver is new enough, but you should
investigate that and try to do it, before you buy a
widescreen. If it doesn't seen to work, assume you cannot
use a widescreen and buy either a 1280x1024, 19", or a
1600x1200 20.n". I recommend the 1600x1200 today, unless
the budget is very tight.

Alternatively, while G400 had very crisp 2D for it's time,
today all video cards have equivalent 2D and much faster 3D.
Before paying a lot for a monitor you should consider it
could be time to upgrade the video card, especially if you
don't have a DVI output on the G400, that will significantly
increase monitor display quality above 1280x1024 resolution.
Even today's low-end, $30 after rebate current-gen video
cards will have a better result with today's displays so
long as they have DVI output... plus they can use widescreen
resolutions if you really wanted that... some people do and
some dont.

Personally, I bought a widescreen only because it was cost
effective. Going above 1600x1200 in 4:3 ratio LCDs is
obscenely expensive.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

Grinder wrote:

> To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I
> think widescreen is a waste of money.

Or a gamer. Wider FOV can make a big difference in games. Tunnel vision
has always been an issue with 4:3 screens with certain kinds of games.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

No LCD monitors run in 1280 x 968 resolution.

--
--DaveW
"void" <void DeleteThis @no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fepl4l2pgtyl000@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and a
>17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try 1024x768,
>everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a larger LCD
>monitor.
>
> First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
> G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
> If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
> monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>
> Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
> what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
> want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
> my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
> the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
> both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

kony wrote:
>
>>If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
>>monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>
>With an LCD, you can run at 60Hz without the issues of
>flicker present on a CRT.
>
>However, there is little reason to try for a monitor that
>supports 1280sx1024. Get a 1600x1200 monitor. Not to be
>confused with 1680x1050 widescreen, there are still a few
>1600x1200 monitors in the market and you would be wise to
>buy one of those now, not waiting till there aren't around
>anymore. Your video card will definitely support it, even
>an older G200 I have was running at that resolution.

You're right about my G400 supporting higher resolutions, including
1600x1200. Seems Windows only shows up to 1280x1024 because that's the
max that my monitor supports.

But I wonder if 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor might seem too small. At work
I use a 24" widescreen monitor, and I'll have to double check, but I think
that the resolution is set to 1920x1200, which seems just right.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void"
<void.RemoveThis@no.spam.com> wrote:

>Grinder wrote:
>
>>void wrote:
>>>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
>>>a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
>>>1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
>>>larger LCD monitor.
>>>
>>>First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
>>>G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
>>> If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>>
>>60Hz should be fine for an LCD monitor. 1280x968 is a weird resolution,
>>is it 1280x960? That would be a standard 4:3 ratio.
>
>You are right, it is 1280x960. And it also supports a 1280x1024
>resolution, which I think is weird. Wouldn't that cause the image to be
>compressed vertically on a non-widescreen monitor? Why would anyone want
>to use that?

No, the pixels on a 5:4 resolutions screen are arranged in a
5:4 ratio, it is not compressed. IE - if the native
resolution of a 19" display is 1280 x 1024, then ONLY 5:4
ratio resolutions will be displayed with the correct ratio.
Similarly, on a CRT with 4:3 ratio, only 4:3 ratio
resolutions will be displayed with correct ratio.

The difference is that LCDs come in multiple ratios you can
choose from, while most CRTs were only 4:3.


>
>
>>>Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>>>what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>>>want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>>>my computer.)
>>
>>To each his own, but unless your PC is principally a media center, I think
>>widescreen is a waste of money.
>
>I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward compatibility
>reasons (I have some games that only run in non-widescreen resolutions).

That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
widescreen resolutions.

>What about dead pixels, is that still an issue? I remember reading about
>that a few years ago, and many stores developed a policy that said if the
>monitor had less than 8 dead pixels, then you could not exchange it for
>another one.

Yes it is still an issue, but it is fairly rare to get more
than 2 or 3 dead pixels and most monitors today have none or
one at most. The seller's policy on taking back a monitor
can vary quite a bit, some even have a more comprehensive
total satisfaction type of guarantee meaning you can return
the monitor for any reason... just be sure to investigate
their policy specific to LCDs before purchase.



>When I got my 17" CRT monitor (a ViewSonic A70), I was surprised that
>1024x768 looked a little small on it. Maybe because the actual viewable
>size is 16". (LCD monitors don't distinguish between marketing size and
>viewable size, do they?)

No, at least not by much. For example if you bought a 22"
it might actually be 21.6", and the same goes for other
resolutions it is very close. You can also calculate out
the real size by the pixel pitch * the horizontal and
vertical resolution.


>And thanks for mentioning what size monitor
>would be good for 1280x1024, I was wondering what size monitor I should
>get. Wait a sec... you say 17" and 19" LCD monitors have native
>resolutions of 1280x1024. So if I run in 1280x960 the image will not be
>optimal. I'll have to wait for the answer to my question about why you
>would want to run in 1280x1024 vs 1280x960.

You have no need to run 1280x960 do you? In everyday use
you would want to use 1280x1024 on a 19" LCD, but as for
your games I don't know... many older games do support
1280x1024.

If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
though of course since these are not the LCD's native
resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
important on many games than on reading text at native
resolution.

Considering the cost of a quality monitor and that a
replacement video card can be had for under $40, you might
seriously consider replacing the video card instead of
letting it dictate and limit what monitor choices you
have... but it doesn't do anything about the gaming support
problem.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

On Sat, 8 Dec 2007 17:38:08 -0800, "Eric Gisin"
<gisin.RemoveThis@uniserve.com> wrote:

>"void" <void.RemoveThis@no.spam.com> wrote in message news:xn0fepl4l2pgtyl000@newsgroups.comcast.net...
>>I have a 7 year old computer with a Matrox Millennium G400 video card and
>> a 17" CRT monitor. I can run in 800x600 comfortably, but if I try
>> 1024x768, everything is a little small on my monitor. So I want to get a
>> larger LCD monitor.
>
>If you can't read 1024x768 on 17", you will not like ANY LCD.
>I ran 1152x864 on 17" CRT, which is comparable to 1280x1024 on 19" LCD.

You have a reasonable point but it's not necessarily true.
While one aspect of readability is size, another that is
also important is crispness. LCDs having far higher
per-pixel accuracy can make text far more readable.


>
>Try setting Advance Display to 120 DPI before you decide on anything.
>>
>> First question: Does refresh rate matter with LCD monitors? I notice my
>> G400 supports a maximum of 1280x968, but the refresh rate would be 60 Hz.
>> If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
>> monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>>
>> Second question: Since my G400 does not support widescreen resolutions,
>> what would happen if I were to buy a widescreen LCD monitor? (I might
>> want a widescreen monitor so that I can use the capability when I upgrade
>> my computer.) Would the image stretch horizontally so that it fit all of
>> the screen? (That would be bad.) Or would there be empty black space on
>> both sides of the image? (That would be better.)
>
>You can download the Matrox custom res utility (use google).
>The card will do 1440x900 but not too much higher.

This is not true, it should be able to run up to 2048x1536
or so. Even the older G200 could run higher than 1600x1200.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void" wrote:

>> I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward
>> compatibility reasons (I have some games that only run in
>> non-widescreen resolutions).
>
> That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
> isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
> widescreen resolutions.

I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen

I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
widescreen. Is this the same the world over? I thought I'd max the credit
card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.

> If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
> display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
> at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
> though of course since these are not the LCD's native
> resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
> important on many games than on reading text at native
> resolution.

Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
monitor barely larger than this one.

I shall look further.
--
Cheers,

Shaun.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

On Mon, 10 Dec 2007 14:29:56 +1300, "~misfit~"
<misfit61nz DeleteThis @yahoot.com.au> wrote:

>Somewhere on teh interweb kony typed:
>> On Sat, 08 Dec 2007 21:16:40 -0600, "void" wrote:
>
>>> I think I will go with a non-widescreen monitor for backward
>>> compatibility reasons (I have some games that only run in
>>> non-widescreen resolutions).
>>
>> That is a good plan, especially considering that the G400
>> isn't powerful enough to run newer 3D games that can use
>> widescreen resolutions.
>
>I too have some older games I play that don't do widescreen
>
>I don't know if it's the limited model options that we get here in New
>Zealand again but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to find new
>non-widescreen LCD monitors. I have a 19", 1280 x 1024 monitor at the moment
>and have been considering getting a larger one. However, after a web search
>of the obvious local suppliers all I can find larger than 19" are
>widescreen. Is this the same the world over?

It does seem that non-widescreen are becoming less and less
common, but in the US there are still quite a few 19"
1280x1024 models, and a few 20-21" 1600x1200 models, though
recently 22" widescreens have dropped in price so the
remaining 1600x1200 models cost more.

Fortunately, if you have a video card with a decent driver
(I prefer nVidia), there are options for just leaving black
bars on the sides when a game needs a non-widescreen
resolution so you still have a native-display, per-pixel
accurancy.




>I thought I'd max the credit
>card (again) and get myself a 21" non-widescreen monitor for Xmas, then I
>could pass on my (perfectly good) 19" as a Xmas present to someone else.

If you can find a 1600x1200 res. monitor, now would be a
good time to buy it, as they may be harder and harder to
find in the future. I just don't know anything about your
market, what is available. If the cost is too high, a 22"
that you only enjoy for non-gaming could also make sense,
just running the games at 1280x1024... which seems a shame,
but gaming is already pretty expensive, only you can decide
how much to pay for that hobby.




>
>> If yours do not, I suggest getting a 20 to 21" 1600x1200
>> display, as it is 4:3 ratio and at worst the game could run
>> at a more traditional and common 1024 x768 or 800x600,
>> though of course since these are not the LCD's native
>> resolution the game will be less sharp, but it is far less
>> important on many games than on reading text at native
>> resolution.
>
>Ahh, OK. So you can get non-widescreen LCDs bigger than 19", I should have
>read further. Although it would have to be 21" minimum to make the upgrade
>worthwhile for me. Also, my eyes probably wouldn't like 1600x1200 on a
>monitor barely larger than this one.
>
>I shall look further.

I have mixed feeling about it. I, unlike some, feel larger
pixel pitch is a good thing, that if the text is too small
it is harder to use, but I can't stand putting a monitor
very close, I am always over 2 feet away from mine. On the
other hand if I were sitting less than 2 feet away, larger
pixels might seem a bit crude and blocky and I would rather
a 1600x1200 res. even if the exact same size display. I
suppose you have to consider your unique uses and see a few
in a store to decide.

Being someone who would rather have multiple displays than
spend a lot on one very large display, I find (at least in
the US, where prices seem lower and discounts are common), I
find the best bang for the buck today to be a 22" 1680x1050,
unless someone is a professional photographer who will then
need a professional quality 8 bit display which tends to
not be available in 22" size... all the 22" I've seen
recently are 6 bit and personally I think some of the better
6 bit look quite good, but some people are pickier than
others. Since I sit further away from mine than many
people, at any given price I would take size over absolute
color accuracy, so long as it isn't a horrible result.

Speaking of horrible results, I find many people seem to
have not compared many monitors, as I have (for example) a
Hanns-G monitor that I find is pretty bad at contrast and
color accuracy, but many people have said they think it's
good. I can't complain as I got it at an exceptional
discount but when I see people saying it's good I can't
imaging what they are comparing it to, as it looks worse
than an average older tech monitor, just larger which is the
opposite of claiming good color and contrast. Putting it
side-by-side with a median quality monitor that much is
obvious and yet people still say it's good, instead of
saying it's good that it's cheap.

I love cheap parts that serve the purpose, but sometimes
it's better to be frank about where the drawbacks are, why
it costs less.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions 

On Sun, 09 Dec 2007 15:57:58 -0600, "void"
<void.RemoveThis@no.spam.com> wrote:

>kony wrote:
>>
>>>If refresh rate doesn't matter with LCD, then I might get a large enough
>>>monitor that lets me run in 1280x968.
>>
>>With an LCD, you can run at 60Hz without the issues of
>>flicker present on a CRT.
>>
>>However, there is little reason to try for a monitor that
>>supports 1280sx1024. Get a 1600x1200 monitor. Not to be
>>confused with 1680x1050 widescreen, there are still a few
>>1600x1200 monitors in the market and you would be wise to
>>buy one of those now, not waiting till there aren't around
>>anymore. Your video card will definitely support it, even
>>an older G200 I have was running at that resolution.
>
>You're right about my G400 supporting higher resolutions, including
>1600x1200. Seems Windows only shows up to 1280x1024 because that's the
>max that my monitor supports.
>
>But I wonder if 1600x1200 on a 20" monitor might seem too small. At work
>I use a 24" widescreen monitor, and I'll have to double check, but I think
>that the resolution is set to 1920x1200, which seems just right.


It will be smaller, but many things (like text) have size
settings in (windows?).

I suggest you go to a store and look at one in that
resolution to decide if it is suitable. Any size is a
tradeoff, if there were only one ideal monitor there
wouldn't be so many choices.
 >> Stay informed about: Monitor questions