Call nVidia

They have a tech support line at 1-408--486-2000

The SOB there will hang up on you, or try to talk
past you, and pretend he does not understand,
but this business of not being able to set full-screen
custom resolutions in the new nVidia drivers is
going to stop. The 8xx series drivers could do
this with no problems ... so they are DAMN LIARS
if they try to tell you that you cannot set a 1280x
800 full screen resolution on a 1680x1050
native resolution lcd monitor. And it does NOT
have a damn thing to do with monitor drivers.
This capability was there for years in the earlier
8xx drivers, and before that using Coolbits.
There is no excuse in this hogwash.

johns

johns wrote:
> They have a tech support line at 1-408--486-2000
>
> The SOB there will hang up on you, or try to talk
> past you, and pretend he does not understand,
> but this business of not being able to set full-screen
> custom resolutions in the new nVidia drivers is
> going to stop. The 8xx series drivers could do
> this with no problems ... so they are DAMN LIARS
> if they try to tell you that you cannot set a 1280x
> 800 full screen resolution on a 1680x1050
> native resolution lcd monitor. And it does NOT
> have a damn thing to do with monitor drivers.
> This capability was there for years in the earlier
> 8xx drivers, and before that using Coolbits.
> There is no excuse in this hogwash.
>
> johns
>


The pitchforks are to the left, oil soaked torches to the right, when
you get back from your mayhem, perhaps a solution will available.

I'm not even sure anymore what you are complaining about, do you want to
stretch a 1280x800 signal onto a 1680x1050 desktop? (So there are no
black bars) or do you want to center the 1280x800 in the 1680x1050
desktop? Do you know how to do both?

Have you used NTune, NView, the display wizard, have you attempted to
manually edit the monitor .INF file to force that resolution? Are you
complaining about a bug in the Vista driver suite that has no solution yet?

Got a better guy at their "call escalation" site.
He saw the problem on his own PC. He could
not "scale" the 1280x800 resolution to his wide
screen monitor. It is a bug in the 9xx and Vista
drivers ... he says. He and I tried every scaling
setting in the driver, and none worked.
HOWEVER ... for those of you who need this
to work NOW. I have a kludge that does work
in the 9xx drivers. Go in to the nVidia Control
Panel, and set your monitor to Native Resolution.
( Yes, it does look like **** ! )
Then, back the resolution off to 1280x800, and
it will hold .. and you will actually be able to
do work and see what you are doing. Seems
the stupid driver bug goes away if you back the
resolution down from 1680x1050 to 1280x800.
However, next time you start the nVidia Control
Panel, you will lose this setting, and wind up
with black borders around the 1280x800 screen.
So ... just don't do that. Give them a call, and
tell them what you think of their over-one-year
old 9xx and Vista driver bug that they have
ignored.

johns

> I'm not even sure anymore what you are complaining about, do you want to
> stretch a 1280x800 signal onto a 1680x1050 desktop? (So there are no
> black bars) or do you want to center the 1280x800 in the 1680x1050
> desktop? Do you know how to do both?

There's no such thing as a specific sized desktop.
That is nothing but industry hype. The desktop is
purely a graphic "picture", and it can be any size
you want it to be. It just becomes a matter of how
the image is shared over the discrete pixel elements.
A font on the screen is no different to display than
an eye on your pet cat. It is smoothed and spread
over an array of elements .... AND, it only looks
good to the eye if it is dithered over those elements
to remove any "digital" look. That means .. if the
native resolution is used, then the font is drawn
much smaller ... but NOT CLEARER. That is a damn
lie the industry is spreading around, because for
a time, they just did not know how to do it. NOW,
they do, and the smoothing can be shared over more
pixel elements ... which is the same as saying
1280x800 ... and it is both darker and smoother
.... and still uses the 96 dpi standard that is in
the Word Processing apps ... and far more readable
by the average person. The LIE was created to
cover up the fact that smoothing fonts over more
pixel elements was SLOW, and caused the screen
to blink and trail. Now, the whole process is much
faster, and they can darn well fix it OR ELSE.
1280x800 IS a 16:10 scale ... just the same as
1680x1050, and there is no excuse in claiming
that it must have different SIZES. That is pure
pig ****, and I'm tired of hearing it from those
slimey bastard creeps. What amazes me is the
ATI cards do this effortlessly ... and SO DO ALL
of the nVidia cards running the 8xx series drivers.
They must think we are morons, when they lie
to us about this problem.

johns
>
> Have you used NTune, NView, the display wizard, have you attempted to
> manually edit the monitor .INF file to force that resolution? Are you
> complaining about a bug in the Vista driver suite that has no solution yet?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"johns" <> wrote in message
news: ups.com...
>> I'm not even sure anymore what you are complaining about, do you want
>> to
>> stretch a 1280x800 signal onto a 1680x1050 desktop? (So there are no
>> black bars) or do you want to center the 1280x800 in the 1680x1050
>> desktop? Do you know how to do both?
>
> There's no such thing as a specific sized desktop.
> That is nothing but industry hype. The desktop is
> purely a graphic "picture", and it can be any size
> you want it to be. It just becomes a matter of how
> the image is shared over the discrete pixel elements.
> A font on the screen is no different to display than
> an eye on your pet cat. It is smoothed and spread
> over an array of elements .... AND, it only looks
> good to the eye if it is dithered over those elements
> to remove any "digital" look. That means .. if the
> native resolution is used, then the font is drawn
> much smaller ... but NOT CLEARER. That is a damn
> lie the industry is spreading around, because for
> a time, they just did not know how to do it. NOW,
> they do, and the smoothing can be shared over more
> pixel elements ... which is the same as saying
> 1280x800 ... and it is both darker and smoother
> ... and still uses the 96 dpi standard that is in
> the Word Processing apps ... and far more readable
> by the average person. The LIE was created to
> cover up the fact that smoothing fonts over more
> pixel elements was SLOW, and caused the screen
> to blink and trail. Now, the whole process is much
> faster, and they can darn well fix it OR ELSE.
> 1280x800 IS a 16:10 scale ... just the same as
> 1680x1050, and there is no excuse in claiming
> that it must have different SIZES. That is pure
> pig ****, and I'm tired of hearing it from those
> slimey bastard creeps. What amazes me is the
> ATI cards do this effortlessly ... and SO DO ALL
> of the nVidia cards running the 8xx series drivers.
> They must think we are morons, when they lie
> to us about this problem.


No, that's just plain wrong. If an LCD has 1440 pixels going across,
and 900 down, then that would be the specific desktop size. If you
tried to force it to, say, 1280 x 960, then you are telling it to render
parts of the 'picture' on partial pixels. You then have 1440 elements
going across but only 1280 parts of the picture to fill it. Each part
of the picture would need to fill 1.125 pixels (1440 / 1280). Now how
do you get that eighth of a pixel to show a different color than the
rest of the pixel? You can try dithering or any number of special
driver tricks, but the picture will never look as clear as it would in
native resolution. Letter boxing is one way to get a clear picture, but
stretching will either cause blurriness or distortion.

Your rant about ratios is wrong. Let's use the same 1440 x 900 LCD.
That's 16:10. If you run it at 1600 x 1000, then you have the same
ratio, but are telling it to use 9/10s of a pixel, in each direction,
for each part of the picture. It may work, but it won't look right.
You could run it at 720 x 450, then you would be using 2 whole pixels,
in each direction (4 in all), to show the same part of the picture as
one pixel would take natively.

>
> johns
>>
>> Have you used NTune, NView, the display wizard, have you attempted to
>> manually edit the monitor .INF file to force that resolution? Are you
>> complaining about a bug in the Vista driver suite that has no
>> solution yet?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>

johns wrote:
> Got a better guy at their "call escalation" site.
> He saw the problem on his own PC. He could
> not "scale" the 1280x800 resolution to his wide
> screen monitor. It is a bug in the 9xx and Vista
> drivers ... he says. He and I tried every scaling
> setting in the driver, and none worked.
> HOWEVER ... for those of you who need this
> to work NOW. I have a kludge that does work
> in the 9xx drivers. Go in to the nVidia Control
> Panel, and set your monitor to Native Resolution.
> ( Yes, it does look like **** ! )
> Then, back the resolution off to 1280x800, and
> it will hold .. and you will actually be able to
> do work and see what you are doing. Seems
> the stupid driver bug goes away if you back the
> resolution down from 1680x1050 to 1280x800.
> However, next time you start the nVidia Control
> Panel, you will lose this setting, and wind up
> with black borders around the 1280x800 screen.
> So ... just don't do that. Give them a call, and
> tell them what you think of their over-one-year
> old 9xx and Vista driver bug that they have
> ignored.
>
> johns
>

How are you connecting your monitor? DVI sends DDE info between the
monitor's chip and your videocard to negotiate things such as what scan
rates to use for what resolutions and how to scale the screen. This is
very dependent on the DVI components of your board and a properly
installed monitor (INF or otherwise detected).

If you have the option, try using regular VGA (analog). Chances are
that your panel will be able to produce identical output without
noticeable image quality loss (as long as it doesn't interpolate
multiple pixels). In this fashion the video card will determine the
resolution and scaling entirely. Even newer low-cost flat panels have
fairly good 6-bit chips in them, so it shouldn't be a problem.

KCB wrote:
>
> "johns" <> wrote in message
> news: ups.com...
>>> I'm not even sure anymore what you are complaining about, do you want to
>>> stretch a 1280x800 signal onto a 1680x1050 desktop? (So there are no
>>> black bars) or do you want to center the 1280x800 in the 1680x1050
>>> desktop? Do you know how to do both?
>>
>> There's no such thing as a specific sized desktop.
>> That is nothing but industry hype. The desktop is
>> purely a graphic "picture", and it can be any size
>> you want it to be. It just becomes a matter of how
>> the image is shared over the discrete pixel elements.
>> A font on the screen is no different to display than
>> an eye on your pet cat. It is smoothed and spread
>> over an array of elements .... AND, it only looks
>> good to the eye if it is dithered over those elements
>> to remove any "digital" look. That means .. if the
>> native resolution is used, then the font is drawn
>> much smaller ... but NOT CLEARER. That is a damn
>> lie the industry is spreading around, because for
>> a time, they just did not know how to do it. NOW,
>> they do, and the smoothing can be shared over more
>> pixel elements ... which is the same as saying
>> 1280x800 ... and it is both darker and smoother
>> ... and still uses the 96 dpi standard that is in
>> the Word Processing apps ... and far more readable
>> by the average person. The LIE was created to
>> cover up the fact that smoothing fonts over more
>> pixel elements was SLOW, and caused the screen
>> to blink and trail. Now, the whole process is much
>> faster, and they can darn well fix it OR ELSE.
>> 1280x800 IS a 16:10 scale ... just the same as
>> 1680x1050, and there is no excuse in claiming
>> that it must have different SIZES. That is pure
>> pig ****, and I'm tired of hearing it from those
>> slimey bastard creeps. What amazes me is the
>> ATI cards do this effortlessly ... and SO DO ALL
>> of the nVidia cards running the 8xx series drivers.
>> They must think we are morons, when they lie
>> to us about this problem.
>
>
> No, that's just plain wrong. If an LCD has 1440 pixels going across,
> and 900 down, then that would be the specific desktop size. If you
> tried to force it to, say, 1280 x 960, then you are telling it to render
> parts of the 'picture' on partial pixels. You then have 1440 elements
> going across but only 1280 parts of the picture to fill it. Each part
> of the picture would need to fill 1.125 pixels (1440 / 1280). Now how
> do you get that eighth of a pixel to show a different color than the
> rest of the pixel? You can try dithering or any number of special
> driver tricks, but the picture will never look as clear as it would in
> native resolution. Letter boxing is one way to get a clear picture, but
> stretching will either cause blurriness or distortion.
>
> Your rant about ratios is wrong. Let's use the same 1440 x 900 LCD.
> That's 16:10. If you run it at 1600 x 1000, then you have the same
> ratio, but are telling it to use 9/10s of a pixel, in each direction,
> for each part of the picture. It may work, but it won't look right. You
> could run it at 720 x 450, then you would be using 2 whole pixels, in
> each direction (4 in all), to show the same part of the picture as one
> pixel would take natively.
>
>>
>> johns
>>>
>>> Have you used NTune, NView, the display wizard, have you attempted to
>>> manually edit the monitor .INF file to force that resolution? Are you
>>> complaining about a bug in the Vista driver suite that has no
>>> solution yet?- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>>
>

I agree; the OP seems to lack an understanding of raster elements and
how pixel interpolation works on fixed displays.

On 13 Feb 2007 09:50:04 -0800, "johns" <> wrote:

>They have a tech support line at 1-408--486-2000
>
>The SOB there will hang up on you, or try to talk
>past you, and pretend he does not understand,
>but this business of not being able to set full-screen
>custom resolutions in the new nVidia drivers is
>going to stop. The 8xx series drivers could do
>this with no problems ... so they are DAMN LIARS
>if they try to tell you that you cannot set a 1280x
>800 full screen resolution on a 1680x1050
>native resolution lcd monitor. And it does NOT
>have a damn thing to do with monitor drivers.

>There is no excuse in this hogwash.
>
>johns

A siimple reference check, please:-

Load the 8xx drivers on the hardware which is giving you the problem,
and see if the problem goes away. The fact that you said:-

>This capability was there for years in the earlier
>8xx drivers, and before that using Coolbits.
>

may be a clue. Are you now using a DVI connection, where previously
you had just analog VGA ? Anyway, please load the old drivers and let
us know the results.

John Lewis

"I need my delusions of grandure" *johns* 12-Feb-2007