January 21st, 2011, 04:35 AM
HDTV & WIN7 Resolution Problem-scaling-1920*1080
So I have Windows 7 Ultimate and a 22" Phillips monitor (Phillips 221E1HSB).
The recommended resolution for this monitor is 1920*1080 but in the settings I have 1920*1200 and 1600*1200!!!!!!!!
I tried 1600*1200 but the quality was not good but I had a full screen...
Then I tried 1920*1200 but the problem is that the screen is not extended through the monitor! You know what I mean...Like a couple of inches are missing....It's like now I have a 19" or something monitor and the other section of monitor is black.!!!!!!!!!! I tried to extend the screen by the buttons on the monitor but the OSD setting option moves itself of extending the screen!!!!!!!!!!!
I googled and apparently it's a scaling problem or something but I couldn't solve it.
Someone has posted a solution in:
But I couldn't apply it.
Please let me know if you can help.
Thanks a lot
By the way this is my graphics info: Intel® 82915G/82910GL Express Chipset Family
January 21st, 2011, 08:14 AM
This page apparently deal with the same problem but I couldn't find the appropriate thing for my problem:
January 21st, 2011, 11:40 AM
This has nothing to do with Windows operating systems............all they have are a few failsafe settings for generic displays. This is a Windows XP pro box my wife purchased from her workplace. It is a typical office machine with an Intel MoBo and a GMA 900 Intel Graphics Media Accellerator. That is the same as in your Dell.
I can produce the same effects with my 23" HD widescreen monitor. This is all about the monitor and the graphics chipset or video card. All I had to do was stick in a PNY nVIDIA GeForce 8400GS with 512MB DDR2 and it works just fine, because it is an HD graphics card.
The GMA 900 does support widescreen, but the older sort, rather than the latest HD, which is slightly different.
The aspect ratios are:
4:3 Standard, traditional VDU (1600x1200)
15:9 Older Widescreen (1920x1200)
16:9 HD Widescreen (1920x1080)
The 4:3 version will fit onto a newer screen, but you don't get HD quality.
Actually, there is no such thing as "recommended resolution" for a monitor, just as there is no such thing as a "monitor driver"..............these are just manufacturers' dumbing down misnomers. The correct term is "native" resolution, which is the finest (highest) resolution recommended. The "driver" is just an identification file that tells the OS and video management software what it is, and what range of resolutions and refresh rates it supports as recommended by the manufacturer.
My wife's machine is made by a local UK outfit called Compusys, now taken over and the new guys don't seem to support their stuff I ran the update checker on the Intel site, and the video chipset is not supported. So if you are thinking of trying that route, do run the check first, as Dell are notorious for messing with things.
Your only hope would seem to be if you have the ability to create a custom resolution setting, but somehow I can't see Dell allowing that. Or someone has written a third party driver for the chipset? Obviously, either of those would be entirely at your own risk. I guess you have already looked on the Dell website?
The solutions you have linked to are for internal video cards, that come with a full blown management system. This 8400GS, for example, shows me the native resolution of 1280x1024 for this Hyundai L70S+ (4:3). If I click on the "Customize" button I can set all sorts of VDU killing ratios, including 1920x1080.
At the top of the change resolution screen it says: "You can also chose the high-definition [HD] format if you are using an HDTV"
The point that I am trying to make is that I have created a situation that is the opposite of yours.................the video chipset is better than the monitor can handle, but the relationship is the same....... the weakest wins!
To be honest, you don't need a very powerfull computer for home entertainment. Just one that will take a half- decent video card, and possibly a soundcard. I would look at a new (second user) computer.
Unfortunately, I can't really see a way to get your current setup working to its peak potential
Last edited by nihil; January 21st, 2011 at 12:47 PM.
January 21st, 2011, 04:51 PM
OK Try this.
Set the resolution to 400x800 or the lowest you can get. Make sure you can still see your desktop.
Go into adapter properties and change the refresh rate - lower, try different settings don't go lower than 50Mhz
After changing the refresh rate see if 1920x1080 is available
January 22nd, 2011, 02:20 AM
I am afraid that won't work dino, but I do see where you are coming from.
The adapter has told him what it thinks is available, and it is 1600x1200 or 1920x1200. Without a fully featured video management package such as this nVIDIA has, you cannot get 1920x1080.
I believe that what you were really suggesting is set the resolution to something close (in this case it would be 1920x1200 @ 60Hz, as that is wide screen 15:9) then go into the display/monitor options (the adapter is where you set the resolution and refresh combination), and experiment with changing the refresh rate?
That will give him his slowest speed to start with, as he should have 60,70,72 and 75Hz as options in the monitor settings.
I discovered that trick years ago with an ancient data projector and Dell PIII Optiplex desktops. It would only fill the screen at a refresh rate of 72Hz
I don't think it is possible to get the full 1920x1080 without distortion, but he might get more displayed at one refresh rate rather than another?
There is another problem here, which is the Intel 915 Express chipset or more correctly: "crapset".
From the Intel site:
Basically it will work, but putting Windows 7 Ultimate on that heap of junk is taking the p1$$. What's the betting on it being a legitimate copy? because Dell certainly did not install it.
The hardware limitations of Intel GMA 900 are centered around not having a large enough memory table to support Windows Aero user interface, a key feature that is part of WDDM driver support. This, along with hardware restrictions on surface placement and graphics memory alignment, results in graphics memory usage that is not optimized for Windows Aero performance. Additionally, the lack of native hardware support in the Intel GMA 900 for Windows Vista’s dynamic memory management would result in slower graphics performance and a suboptimal user experience with Windows Aero.
The bottom line is that neither Dell nor Intel are going to bother producing an HD supporting driver for an obsolete chipset that should be running XP or 2000. It isn't in their commercial interests.
I wonder if it would be possible to get it to work with a Linux distro, given that the Linux community tend to write their own drivers?
Last edited by nihil; January 22nd, 2011 at 03:14 AM.
January 23rd, 2011, 05:45 AM
First @BoyBoy ... Nihil is correct (although it may be seen as a little bit harsh) you won't get the support you want for windows 7 with the onboard video card. You should look at getting an inexpensive video card for your machine if it supports one.
Intel: Supported OS's (Win 2000 & XP)
Second, their explaination as to why it won't work with 7 is due to Aero (also as Nihil said)
The Microsoft Windows 7* operating system (OS) supports two different graphics driver models: the Windows* Display Driver Model (WDDM 1.0 & 1.1) and the older Windows* XP Driver Model (XPDM). WDDM drivers provide the 3D graphical user interface experience to users. XPDM drivers provide an interface that visually resembles the Windows XP user interface and do not support Windows 7 OS premium features such as the Microsoft Aero* user interface.
Only XPDM drivers** are available for the following older IntelŪ graphics controllers:
* Mobile IntelŪ 915GM/GMS, 910GML Express Chipset Family
* IntelŪ 82915G/82910GL Express Chipset Family
* IntelŪ 82865G Graphics Controller
* IntelŪ 82852/82855 Graphics Controller
* IntelŪ 82845G Graphics Controller
* IntelŪ 82830M Graphics Controller
* IntelŪ 82815 Graphics Controller
* IntelŪ 82810 Graphics Controller
Why doesnt Intel provide WDDM graphics drivers for older graphics controllers?
WDDM graphics drivers are not available due to hardware limitations in the older IntelŪ graphics controllers. The overall hardware architecture and design of these older graphics controllers were finalized prior to Microsoft's release of details and specifications on WDDM drivers and running the Aero user interface. Thus, there are hardware limitations that would limit graphics performance and memory capabilities when attempting to run a WDDM driver on Windows 7 operating system with these older graphics controllers.
The understanding in that .... is that you can get an XPDM driver that will work, but that means you won't be able to use any of the Aero features, and again, this driver is not tested or supported.
Intel has not tested XPDM graphics drivers on the Windows 7 operating system. XPDM drivers may install but may function with limited functionality.
So again.. advice is.. if your system can take a video card, you should look into that as the best solution to getting a better and supported driver to work with Windows 7.
Post back with your PC model and we can help look up cards that should work for you. There are some really cheap sub 50 dollar cards that would be light years ahead of the intel chip you currently have ... but only if your system can take an add-on card.
January 23rd, 2011, 05:10 PM
BoyBoy has two threads running on different topics, but about the same kit, so you might like to look at this thread in conjunction?
It is a Dell Optiplex SX280, which I would guess is around 2002~2004 vintage.
It was one of those fancy "concept" machines where the PC could actually hang off the back of a 15" or 17" monitor to minimise the footprint. It was entirely designed for office use, so the video capabilities were not that high, albeit pretty good for an onboard chipset of that era IMO.
The main point here is that it has absolutely no expansion slot capabilities, so an external video card is not an option.
BoyBoy bought it on e-bay for $125, and seemed to think that he could use it to watch HD videos on his 22" HD Monitor at 1920x1080. I suppose he was taken in by the Windows 7 Ultimate, which one might expect to find only on machines that would support HDTV resolutions?
As I said, this is a video chipset/monitor issue rather than an OS one, but the fact that the intended OSes are either no longer supported or end of life means that no commercial outfit (Intel/OEM/M$) is going to issue a revision to support the latest monitors on the intended OSes.
It seems that the lesson of "Vista Capable" and "Vista Ready" has not been learned? Sure, it will run Windows 7 Ultimate, but no better than XP Home.
I would bet that if you ran the Windows 7 performance diagnostic it would score 1 or less for graphics, and that the Windows 7 ready analysis tool would tell you to replace the graphics, or maybe run the Home Basic version.
The frustrating thing is that you don't need all the fancy Aero stuff just to play HD videos, it is just that the old drivers don't suport the new HD resolution/format. The only commercial interest I can see would be from the manufacturers of the HD screens, as they would gladly sell their kit to people with older computers? Perhaps contacting their technical support might help.........not the regular helpdesk of course, as it isn't a problem with their equipment as such.
Takes me back to the days of widescreen movies on TV or VCR.........you had those two black bands top and bottom? Nobody seemed to complain back then?
I am still looking at a workaround, but it would basically mean making the system think it was dealing with an HDTV rather than a monitor. I think that would be rather complicated, especially with a P n P device which automatically identifies itself? Even if you got it to work, I have absolutely no idea what the quality would be like, given that it is such a gross hack.
What makes this doubly frustrating is that I am pretty sure we could get it to work if it were the mobile version and we had an S-video socket.
February 1st, 2011, 06:07 AM
February 1st, 2011, 08:44 AM
ahh.... SFF (small form factor) there's always a reason for a "feature packed" mini-machine to be "inexpensive" .. limited upgrades ...
So ... WIndows XP is an option, Linux (to learn, experiment, build an interesting firewall with intrusion detection and logging) .. but not HD Windows 7...
Good luck on the next system!
February 2nd, 2011, 12:11 AM
Basically AGP 8X (the MoBo has to support this as well) and TV Out (S-Video?). Otherwise PCI-e x16.
So at the end of the day, considering y'all know about my monitor model and properties, can you please tell me that what should be the minimum specifications I will need to look after in the next video card (in the next PC) I'm gonna buy to use the maximum graphics possible with this monitor? I'm not really a gamer by the way...
There are a lot of relatively inexpensive cards out there that will do the job, as you are not into heavy duty gaming or graphics applications.
BTW.Your Windows 7 is pirated, but the sticker suggests that you have a legitimate XP Pro licence.
Last edited by nihil; February 2nd, 2011 at 12:16 AM.
By pwaring in forum Other Tutorials Forum
Last Post: October 22nd, 2004, 10:15 PM
By sweet_angel in forum *nix Security Discussions
Last Post: October 17th, 2002, 01:48 PM
By roccobarbi in forum AntiOnline's General Chit Chat
Last Post: July 22nd, 2002, 12:32 AM
By Rna in forum General Programming Questions
Last Post: May 22nd, 2002, 08:03 AM
By InsaneData in forum Newbie Security Questions
Last Post: March 25th, 2002, 02:35 PM