Low refresh rate

[kristenson]

OK, so I'm having a strange issue with my PC.
As i been using windows vista for some time now with my 22 inch Acer monitor, with resolution 1680x1050 60 MHz, and lately i discovered that it wont work under windows 7 same way, what happens is that even display configuration recommends using native resolution 1680x1050 it wont let me save it under 60 MHz, it will pop down to 59 and this is way too annoying for my eyes.
is there something wrong with 7 op sys or is it driver issue or is it monitor incompatible?
please, i need to find solution before I'm going bonkers with this issue!

[Allan]

You can tell the difference between 59 & 60 Mhz??

[kristenson]

You can tell the difference between 59 & 60 MHz??

of course, its killin my eyes when its 59, its just weird that it wont stay on 60, don't you think?

[Allan]

The other day I noticed mine was at 59 also, but after a few adjustments to 60 the setting for 59 just disappeared. But there's no way I could tell the difference between the two settings.

[kristenson]

no no, I'm tellin you, its absolutely discrease, under vista its relax-in, well .. i can play maybe hours without feelin dizzy, under 7 just 5 minutes will make my eyes poppin out:)
it looks like 59 under vista ain't bad. i cant see difference as well.

[patio]

wow...

[dahlarbear]

Will your system safely run that resolution "1680x1050" at a higher screen rate (without damaging hardware)?  It's always been my understanding that a higher rate is easier on the eyes (say 70, 72, or 75 MHz).

Is 60 MHz the "optimum" refresh rate for that screen resolution (or part of the "native" mode configuration)?

[Vikram Varaprasad]

The refresh rate can be calculated from the horizontal scan rate by dividing by the number of horizontal lines multiplied by 1.05 (since about 5% of the time it takes to scan the screen is spent moving the electron beam back to the top). For instance, a monitor with a horizontal scanning frequency of 96 kHz at a resolution of 1280 × 1024 results in a refresh rate of 96,000 / (1024 × 1.05) ≈ 89 Hz (rounded down).

Different operating systems set the default refresh rate differently. Microsoft Windows 95 and Windows 98 (First and Second Editions) set the refresh rate to the highest rate that they believe the display supports. Windows NT-based operating systems, such as Windows 2000 and its descendants Windows XP and Windows Vista, set the default refresh rate to the lowest supported rate, usually 60 Hz. The many variations of Linux usually set a refresh rate chosen by the user during setup of the display manager (although a default option is usually included with xfree86). Many full-screen applications, such as games, allow the user to reconfigure the refresh rate before entering full-screen mode. But some poorly designed applications launch directly into full-screen mode in an out-of-range setting and force the user to reconfigure the setting "blind"

I believe that it is a problem with the driver you use. If the company has not released a windows 7 driver then please wait until it is released and live with the 60Hz refresh rate.

[kristenson]

right..so.. basically windows recommends 1680x1050 with 60 MHz maximum refresh rate in windows seven, in vista same, under vista its working like a charm but under 7 its not, drops down to 59 after applying 60, right.  and I'm not sure its nvidia driver issue , i guess its something to do with large monitor compatibility in windows 7.
I did try with 19 inch monitor couple of weeks ago and the native recommended resolution 1280x1024 with 75MHz  was working perfectly.

[Allan]

Will your system safely run that resolution "1680x1050" at a higher screen rate (without damaging hardware)?  It's always been my understanding that a higher rate is easier on the eyes (say 70, 72, or 75 MHz).

Is 60 MHz the "optimum" refresh rate for that screen resolution (or part of the "native" mode configuration)?

60 is fine for flat panels (and so is 59 ). The higher refresh rates to which you refer were/are for crt's

[dahlarbear]

60 is fine for flat panels (and so is 59 ). The higher refresh rates to which you refer were/are for crt's

Thank you Allan.

[Allan]

Sure

He can't possible see a difference between 59 and 60 because there is no interlacing on flat panels. It's the alternate scan (interlacing) of crt's that required the higher refresh rates. Pixels on flat panels all typically refresh at the same time.

[kristenson]

guys, I'm telling you its not fine, under vista 59 and 60 is no difference but under seven its just really bad, all i want to know that is it 22 inch monitor's issue with window seven or driver issue?

[patio]

Where is this ver. of Win7 from ? ?

[Allan]

I also have a 22 in display. With all due respect, there is no difference between 59 & 60 Mhz.

[Vikram Varaprasad]

Me too........found no difference in b/w 59 and 60

[dahlarbear]

Perhaps you could try the Vista drivers (video/monitor?) on Windows 7 (if they currently use different versions).

[Vikram Varaprasad]

Ofcourse i recently bought 7

[Allan]

Okay, here's the offical explanation: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2006076/

[patio]

Nice find, Allan...

[Allan]

[soybean]

Even if the computer actually displayed 59Hz sometimes and 60Hz at other times, would we be able to tell the difference? I doubt it.

[Allan]

First of all, no. And second, the article clearly says both are the same.

[soybean]

... the article clearly says both are the same.

Yes, I know.  I was posing a hypothetical question.

[Allan]

Oh. Well again, no way anyone could discern a difference of 1MHz - although as you can see in this thread there are those who will claim they can