Computer screen resolution

[truenorth]

O/S = Win xp home. Today i have introduced an orphan computer into the household. Many issues existed which have mostly been overcome. However there is one that remains and i am having a difficulty solving. I share ,via a 2 way KVM switch, a single monitor and 2 computers. One of the computers a Dell XPS is always connected and i use the other side to connect a variety of other computers as i decide to work on them.In this case the "new" one is a Dell Dimension 2400 desktop. Once i was able to gain access to a desktop display i found that all displays (only windows windows so far(no internet connection yet) are too large and the outer edges are slightly beyond the screen available surface.IE: the "X" to close a window is barely visible. Now i know that a change of screen resolution can affect this. Currently the only resolution available is 640x480 16bit. If i were able to go to a higher resolution the screen size will diminish. But i cannot use the "slider" to do this as it won't allow movement. Nor can i change the "medium 16 bit to any other value". Is it possible that because i am running this computer through the KVM switch that that is affecting my resolution change abilities? Any other ideas would be appreciated. I have done extensive web searching and they all point to changing the display resolution as the way to solve this. truenorth

[DaveLembke]

Your monitor properties can be adjusted for Horizontal and Vertical dimensions, usually a menu button on the face of the display. You can also tweak the frequency from 60hz to 70, 75 etc to fix problems like this. I'd try 1024 x 768 res at 16,24 or 32 bit. You should be able to find a setting that works between both systems. You can also try a driver update for the older Dell, where it may have assumed a Windows default driver that caused the dimensions to be out of whack. I had an older Dell Pentium 3 that I ended up just installing a GeForce 2 card to to balance the dimensions between 2 systems, KVM with single display etc. You can get a cheap low end PCI or AGP video card (if your system has an AGP port) for less than $20 to resolve this if you are fighting too much with it to make it work between them.

[truenorth]

Dave, Thank you for your very comprehensive reply. You have given me much food for thought and a number of ways to approach a solution. For what it's worth i do realize that adjusting the screen size display could be an option but of course that will also affect the display of the XPS (which is NOT having the issue) so i really don't want to go there. The driver issue i believe may have promise as this (Dimension) was probably connected to an analog crt monitor in it's earlier life and now is connected to a LCD monitor. Long ago i did resolve a monitor issue by changing the "frequency" so that may be a possibility and give control to change the resolution back.I have forgotten how to do that but i'm sure a google search will show me how. I shall continue to work on this using some of your observations and will report back when/if i resolve things. Again thank you,truenorth

[rthompson80819]

I've got to think you have tried this, but since you didn't mention it, what happens when you hook up the new computer directly to the monitor?

Some KVM electronic switches are programmed to send "bogus" information to computers to allow a computer to boot without error messages without actually being connected to or looking for keyboards or mice.  Maybe your KVM switch is sending out information to the monitor to use 640x480 as a defalt resolution.

[truenorth]

rth, Actually i have NOT done that yet. The question i originally asked was with that possibility in mind. However not knowing whether it COULD be a factor i thought i would ask 1st. I recently acquired a small 15 in LCD which i haven't tried yet. Did not want to use it when i was working on the Dimension as it potentially could have  added to the problems. So i elected to tie it in to other hardware i already was using and knew did work. But now that the Dimension is beyond all it's major problems that will become part of my "to try" list. Thank you for your input. truenorth

[truenorth]

Just a brief update to this post. I have transfered the Dell Dimension to it's own keyboard/mouse/lcd monitor.Initially it presented the same "too large"display. Then i used the size controls on the monitor and that has a proper desktop windows size now. However i also downloaded what i believed to be the proper graphic drivers from the Intel site (noticed a yellow asterisks beside the sub listing of "display adapters"). Which is "Intel 82845G/5G/GL/GE/PE/GV". Given that i now have the computer online i downloaded and supposedly installed from the site directly to the computer.I still have no ability to change resolution values and the yellow asterisk is still there.  Work in progress i guess.truenorth

[truenorth]

More effort to resolve this issue has resulted in the following:
1.Apparently on an LCD screen altering the refresh rate value has little to no affect as apparently it was used to resolve "flicker" issues on CRT displays but these do NOT occur on LCD's. Most LCD manufacturers do NOT recommend altering the refresh rate.
2. I thought to install a new graphics card. I actually have a very nice recent unused PCI-E card that i thought i would just pop in. Well i opened up the computer and soon realized no PCI-E slots period. No AGP slots either. Only 3 unused PCI slots and apparently very few graphics cards were made in that mode and those that were were very low end.
3. So i am back to the driver issue which i think if i can upgrade (install) i may get control back to change the resolution. Now in that area once i got the computer on-line as i stated earlier i did download what i believe are the proper drivers from the Intel site. However i have a question about that process. I assumed that if i downloaded them without saving them to a specific location they would automatically associate with the card. They obviously did not as nothing i have stated previously has changed. Would i have improved my chances for the proper association if i had 1st stored the drivers at a know location (like my documents folder ) and then from the device manager where the fault lies have led an update drivers "from a specified location"-my documents? By the way in case it is not realized this is an onboard graphics card. There are no other faults indicated in device manager. truenorth 

[BC_Programmer]

You say there is an error in Device Manager with the display driver can you tell us the reason? (According to the computer) (Right-Click device properties; the reason should be listed in the "Device status" area)

[truenorth]

BC, Thank you for your interest. I will respond to your information request shortly as per your guidance.The Dimension is currently in another part of the house in preparation to being connected to an LCD TV. So i'll retrieve it and run it  at my work station location. truenorth

[soybean]

Only 3 unused PCI slots and apparently very few graphics cards were made in that mode and those that were were very low end.

Actually, many PCI video cards were made.  Their number and availability on the market have, of course, declined due to AGP and PCI Express being better performance options for video cards.  But, if you're intended use for this computer is email, word processing, some web surfing, etc., a PCI card will work fine. 

I had an older Dell Pentium 3 that I ended up just installing a GeForce 2 card to to balance the dimensions between 2 systems, KVM with single display etc. You can get a cheap low end PCI or AGP video card (if your system has an AGP port) for less than $20 to resolve this if you are fighting too much with it to make it work between them.

I agree with DaveLembke.   A search on ebay for pci video card yielded 3,387 results.   newegg.com still lists 59 PCI video cards; they range from a GeForce2 MX400 with 32MB of memory to faster GPU cards with up to 512MB.  And, PCI cards are still sold by BestBuy, Staples, etc.  Here's one from BestBuy: PNY - Verto NVIDIA GeForce 8400 GS 512MB GDDR2 PCI Graphics Card ; good price, by the way, if you wanted something of that caliber.  If not, ebay is probably the best source to save money on this project; you might be able to get a card for about $10.

[truenorth]

Soybean, Thank you for your suggestions i shall look into a PCI graphics card if i cannot resolve what i think is a driver issue. I still haven't had the chance to deal with BC's post yet so i'll do that 1st. I am even beginning to doubt the quality level of this computer's ability to do what i was hoping to do with it. Which is to connect it to a 32 inch LCD TV and reproduce streaming video to the TV from the computer. Given that it only has a VGA output for the video i am concerned with what the quality will be. I am familiar with the cables required for the transfer. Certainly i feel i shall be at a great disadvantage unless i can increase the resolution. Holiday activities are demanding a good portion of my time but i will post when i have done more. truenorth

[BC_Programmer]

Actually, for the most part Television sets have a much lower resolution then nearly any VGA monitor; I've used my laptop connected to a large-screen LCD and plasma displays (using a VGA cable) to watch video and the television was able to use the same resolution of the laptop (which if memory serves is 1280x800) And I was in fact able to increase the resolution by a few "settings" before noticing any issues. The processor in the 2400 (from what I read of the spec, a medium Clock rate P4) will be more then capable of handling anything most video tasks; my Dimension 4400 had no problem playing back high quality Videos (1024x768 or thereabouts) without any dropped frames.

The burdens of processing for Images and especially video are heavy, but computers have been rather good at dealing with that sort of data throughput since the Pentium or so; Mostly it's people selling new computers that try to tell people otherwise.

Regarding PCI cards: They work well. when my Radeon 7000 died in my older K6-2 I had all sorts of problems trying to get my other AGP cards working; the system apparently had rather poorly implemented- or perhaps just outdated - AGP hardware. I ended up instead going with a PCI card, which worked just fine.

The only real difference between PCI and AGP is that AGP has a direct "line" to system memory that it can use for Video memory; however, most PCI cards nowadays have plenty of memory to spare; even 64MB is plenty for anything that doesn't involve realtime 3-D. They won't reach out along the bus and use system memory unless they have no choice (or if a program wants them too store textures there for whatever reason). As for simply displaying the windows XP and earlier desktop, memory size is no longer an issue; while it originally decided how high of a resolution you could run and in how many colours you could run it, the demands of 3-D processing and the memory additions to video cards for that task have exponentially increased the available memory for the graphics card making questions like "do I have enough memory to run 1024x768 at 32-bit or will I need to compromise with 16-bit?" redundant.

[truenorth]

BC, Extremely comprehensive explanation of what the issues of computer/tv interface involves. I have done this about a year ago with a Dell XPS with stand alone video card and more connection options. I note your comments re resolution but i felt that 480/640 16 bit might be too low. I just could not justifiably continue to use what i consider to be a far superior computer (the Dell XPS ) to this limited function when i was using it for that so seldom. So when i came upon this Dimension i thought i would use it instead.But as you undoubtedly know it is a pretty basic machine. As far as i can see so far is that it is so very quiet. Which given my own research seems to be the most prominent feature it has going for it. Hopefully i can soon delve more into it. Please enjoy the holidays. truenorth

[BC_Programmer]

BC I note your comments re resolution but i felt that 480/640 16 bit might be too low.

Oh dear, I seem to have completely forgotten the original issue regarding resolution, and got caught up in a digression on VGA->Television.

You're original 640x480 at 16-bit issue is what happens when there is no Device driver loaded; Now, a loaded device driver is different in concept from an installed device driver; basically, you could install drivers for anything, even if you didn't have the device, but unless you actually use the device and Windows recognizes it and goes "hey, cool, I have a driver for that" it won't be loaded, and if windows says "hey, driver, load now!" (and calls the driver loading function) the driver generally goes "alright, what am I dealing with here?" and goes to look at the device for which it is designed; if it doesn't find one it usually just breaks out of the initialization routine and tells windows it refuses to load, resulting in a message of the form "This device cannot start" or something to that effect. As you've mentioned yourself you encounter the Exclamation Point on the driver in Device manager. This is the key to the problem. If I remember correctly you have also attempted reinstalling the Video Driver as well; at this point it would seem prudent to investigate why the driver is refusing to load; Thus the reasoning in my last (non-digressional) post suggesting viewing the details in Device Manager; Basically, the Exclamation mark says "hey, there's a problem, I couldn't load this device driver for whatever reason" that actual reason is described in the Properties for the device; With any luck this will give you- and us in turn - a clue as to why the driver is refusing to load and thus perform it's function. It could be a resource conflict- a corrupt driver, or the driver could be refusing to load entirely which usually means you have the wrong driver altogether.


Actually, come to think of it, calling Device Manager Device Manager is a misnomer- what the applet should be called is Driver Manager. 

[truenorth]

To those of you endeavoring to assist me with this issue thank you for your patience. I have finally been able to take some time to go back to the computer and hopefully access the information BC had last asked for.
Under "properties " for the device identified above these are the results.
1.General Tab= a) Location PCI Bus 0, Device 2,Function 0
b)Drver Status =Windows cannot initialize the device driver for this hardware (code 37)
2.Under Driver Tab= a) Driver date 6/21/2005  b)Driver version 6.14.10.4342
3.Detail Tab= Device Interface id = PCI\VEN_8086&SUBSYS_016011028&REV_01\3&172E68DD&0&10
4.Resources Tab= This device isn't using any resources because it has a problem.
  Which of course we all know  truenorth