duplicate entries in device manager
Me
82915g/gv/910gl).
For some reason under device manager the monitors section has 2 entries
(both with my monitor).
If I delete one/both they reappear if I do a scan for new devices or reboot.
Is this normal? why would it be listed 2x
Ferd.Berfle
"Me" <N...@NE.nothing> wrote in message
news:y5WdnZ8rCr0Ea8jW...@earthlink.com...
Me
"Ferd.Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> wrote in message
news:hj4t3s$rm8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
graphics controller to default to (onboard or PCI) and I dont have a PCI (so
it is set to internal)
Me
<Meat Plow> wrote in message news:3f1iqk....@news.alt.net...
> saying this is the case with you.)
just have a standard integrated VGA
Mike Easter
> I have a Dell Dimension 3100 wit integrated Intel graphics (intel
> 82915g/gv/910gl).
> For some reason under device manager the monitors section has 2 entries
> (both with my monitor).
> If I delete one/both they reappear if I do a scan for new devices or reboot.
I see an article that says that obsolete or duplicate items should be
removed in safe mode.
You forgot to mention your OS version.
--
Mike Easter
richard
Nvidia card?
They generally have dual monitor support.
In control panel open the monitor section and see what they show there.
If you plugged in another monitor, you should get a screen asking you what
you want that second monitor to be displayed as and that.
Me
XP SP3.
Just tried it in safe mode, same issue.
"Mike Easter" <Mi...@ster.invalid> wrote in message
news:7rmc3r...@mid.individual.net...
�n�hw��f
with news:hj4t3s$rm8$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
You gormless fucknuckle. One is for the video card itself and the
second is for the application.
Most dells running XP are like that.
--
http://home.comcast.net/~wizardofwhimsy/index.html
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
�n�hw��f
news:RPOdnXWxXYeCYsjW...@earthlink.com:
> sorry.
> XP SP3.
> Just tried it in safe mode, same issue.
>
Yeah, and if it aint broke, dont "fix" it.
The Intel grafx driver has a standalone app and thats the second
entry.
Ferd.Berfle
news:Xns9D058DF644B3F...@216.196.97.142...
> "Ferd.Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> clouded the waters of pure thought
> with news:hj4t3s$rm8$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> "Me" <N...@NE.nothing> wrote in message
>> news:y5WdnZ8rCr0Ea8jW...@earthlink.com...
>>>I have a Dell Dimension 3100 wit integrated Intel graphics (intel
>>>82915g/gv/910gl).
>>> For some reason under device manager the monitors section has 2
>>> entries (both with my monitor).
>>> If I delete one/both they reappear if I do a scan for new devices
>>> or reboot.
>>>
>>> Is this normal? why would it be listed 2x
>>>
>> Try going to bios and change video from dual monitors to single?
>>
>>
> You gormless fucknuckle. One is for the video card itself and the
> second is for the application.
> Most dells running XP are like that.
>
>
<snigger>
You are still illiterate. Are you irish too?
The Old Sourdough
>> I have a Dell Dimension 3100 wit integrated Intel graphics (intel
>> 82915g/gv/910gl).
>> For some reason under device manager the monitors section has 2 entries
>> (both with my monitor).
>> If I delete one/both they reappear if I do a scan for new devices or reboot.
>>
>> Is this normal? why would it be listed 2x
> Nvidia card?
"I have a Dell Dimension 3100 wit integrated Intel graphics"
Yup. That looks like an Nvidia card.
snip
--
The Old Sourdough
No Microsoft products were used in any way for the creation of this
message. If you are using a Microsoft product to view it, BEWARE! - I'm
not responsible for any harm you might encounter as a result.
chuckcar
news:y5WdnZ8rCr0Ea8jW...@earthlink.com:
Try removing both monitors and all the display adapters in device
manager and reboot. Or you could look on the back of the computer as see
if you have a standard VGA connector and a DVI one or two of either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VGA_connector
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
If you only have one monitor connected to the video plugs, then there's
your answer. I have a video card that has two outputs and it does the
exact same thing. It's correct behavior.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
Me
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
news:Xns9D058A4...@127.0.0.1...
Only ONE VGA output (no DVI)
chuckcar
news:0tudnakUqpat2MvW...@earthlink.com:
> Only ONE VGA output (no DVI)
>
Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have corrupted
drivers.
Me
"chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
Nope, still comes back
�n�hw��f
> <s-nigger>
TMI!
> are still illiterate. Are you too?
>
>
Uh no, dimmy, I managed to stay awake in class.
chuckcar
news:98udnc_nO9fQ1MvW...@earthlink.com:
>
> "chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D05C11...@127.0.0.1...
>> "Me" <N...@NE.nothing> wrote in
>> news:0tudnakUqpat2MvW...@earthlink.com:
>>
>>> Only ONE VGA output (no DVI)
>>>
>> Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have
>> corrupted drivers.
>
> Nope, still comes back
>
You remove *every* one of both and let it reboot?
chuckcar
news:04icl511kc43ld2fg...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:01:38 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <ch...@nil.car>
> wrote:
>
>>Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have
>>corrupted drivers.
>
> *sigh* Try to keep up, ok chucktard?
>
> From: Mike Easter <Mi...@ster.invalid>
> Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
> Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:31:23 -0800
> Message-ID: <7rmc3r...@mid.individual.net>
>
> I see an article that says that obsolete or duplicate items should be
> removed in safe mode.
>
> <SNIP>
>
> From: "Me" <N...@NE.nothing>
> Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
> Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager
> Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:51:08 -0500
> Message-ID: <RPOdnXWxXYeCYsjW...@earthlink.com>
>
> sorry.
> XP SP3.
> Just tried it in safe mode, same issue.
Hasn't mattered since windows Millenium. You *really* don't know jack shit do
you?
freemont
There you go blabbering about WinME again. Why don't you give us a link
to that WinME calendar?
OP: It's normal behavior for that adapter. You'll see it again and again
with Intel chipsets. They have the capability to work with two monitors
(whether or not there are two adapters) and this capability shows in
Device Manager as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
--
"Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
Ferd.Berfle
> "Ferd.Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> clouded the waters of pure thought
> with news:hj57ou$b0h$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> <s-nigger>
>
> TMI!
>
>> are still illiterate. Are you too?
>>
>>
> Uh no, dimmy, I managed to stay awake in class.
>
>
>
You should have paid attention.
chuckcar
news:0005c1dd$0$2184$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
When was the last time you actually knew enough to fix a problem here?
That's right - *never*.
> OP: It's normal behavior for that adapter.
And why exactly would that be with only *one* monitor or connector hmm?
Do enlighten us,
> You'll see it again and again
> with Intel chipsets.
You mean like the 810?
> They have the capability to work with two monitors
> (whether or not there are two adapters) and this capability shows in
> Device Manager as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
>
ROFL. And exactly why would that be?
(William Regal)
"Ferd.Berfle" <fa...@farkle.com> wrote in message
news:hj708f$qbn$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
freemont
> freemont <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote in
> news:0005c1dd$0$2184$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:03:50 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>>>
>>> Hasn't mattered since windows Millenium. You *really* don't know jack
>>> shit do you?
>>
>> There you go blabbering about WinME again. Why don't you give us a link
>> to that WinME calendar?
>>
> When was the last time you actually knew enough to fix a problem here?
>
> That's right - *never*.
LOL! Nice dodge, dumbass.
>> OP: It's normal behavior for that adapter.
>
> And why exactly would that be with only *one* monitor or connector hmm?
> Do enlighten us,
It's a by-product of the driver, dumbass. Oh, never mind. You can't
understand.
>> You'll see it again and again
>> with Intel chipsets.
>
> You mean like the 810?
No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device Manager as
>> two identical adapters. Ignore it.
>>
> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?
A quick search turns up:
<http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of USENET
is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
Oh, this is where you disappear. Later, dumbass.
chuckcar
news:00c8d74b$0$8186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>
>>> You'll see it again and again
>>> with Intel chipsets.
>>
>> You mean like the 810?
>
> No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
>
You *said* "Intel Chipsets" The 810 *was* and is an Intel chipset. The
manufacturer of the chips has absolutely no co-relation to whether or not
a card will take more than one monitor. However if one *does*, there will
be two similiar entries (not necessarily identical as my Radeon will attest)
in display adapters and *always* two in monitors. One *will* be either the currently
used monitor or Plug and Play monitor and if the second is unconnected *then*
you will have "unknown monitor". However a video card that only takes one monitor
will have two (or more) monitors listed in Dev Man if the drivers are corrupted.
>>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
>>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device Manager
>>> as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
>>>
>> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?
>
> A quick search turns up:
>
> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
>
> So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of
> USENET is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
>
What does HP have to do with a Dell Computer? Besides, it doesn't match
what the OP is getting - One entry in display adapters and two
*different* entries in monitors. This is proprietary hardware. *Every*
computer manufacturer will do it differently and their drivers won't be
compatible, of that you can be sure.
freemont
> freemont <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote in
> news:00c8d74b$0$8186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>
>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>>
>>
>>>> You'll see it again and again
>>>> with Intel chipsets.
>>>
>>> You mean like the 810?
>>
>> No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
>>
> You *said* "Intel Chipsets" The 810 *was* and is an Intel chipset. The
> manufacturer of the chips has absolutely no co-relation to whether or
> not a card will take more than one monitor. However if one *does*, there
> will be two similiar entries (not necessarily identical as my Radeon
> will attest) in display adapters and *always* two in monitors. One
> *will* be either the currently used monitor or Plug and Play monitor and
> if the second is unconnected *then* you will have "unknown monitor".
> However a video card that only takes one monitor will have two (or more)
> monitors listed in Dev Man if the drivers are corrupted.
The *OP* said that he saw two *monitors* listed in Device *Manager* and
this *confused* *him* because he *has* only one *monitor*. *He* also
*said* that *he* *has* the *Intel* 915 *graphics* chip. *He* should *not*
*let* the Device *Manager* report bother *him* because, *as* the *site* I
linked *to* points *out*, this *is* expected *behavior* from that
*chipset*. Are *you* really this *thick*?
>
>>>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
>>>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device Manager
>>>> as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
>>>>
>>> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?
>>
>> A quick search turns up:
>>
>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
>>
>> So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of
>> USENET is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
>>
> What does HP have to do with a Dell Computer? Besides, it doesn't match
> what the OP is getting - One entry in display adapters and two
> *different* entries in monitors. This is proprietary hardware. *Every*
> computer manufacturer will do it differently and their drivers won't be
> compatible, of that you can be sure.
It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop or a
netbook or what have you. The behavior is the same. And where exactly did
the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
Hey, I don't see GG posts, so I could have missed it. Enlighten me.
Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
chuckcar
news:00c8f6ea$0$8186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:45:56 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>
>> freemont <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote in
>> news:00c8d74b$0$8186$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>>>
>>>
>>>>> You'll see it again and again
>>>>> with Intel chipsets.
>>>>
>>>> You mean like the 810?
>>>
>>> No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
>>>
>> You *said* "Intel Chipsets" The 810 *was* and is an Intel chipset.
>> The manufacturer of the chips has absolutely no co-relation to
>> whether or not a card will take more than one monitor. However if one
>> *does*, there will be two similiar entries (not necessarily identical
>> as my Radeon will attest) in display adapters and *always* two in
>> monitors. One *will* be either the currently used monitor or Plug and
>> Play monitor and if the second is unconnected *then* you will have
>> "unknown monitor". However a video card that only takes one monitor
>> will have two (or more) monitors listed in Dev Man if the drivers are
>> corrupted.
>
> The *OP* said that he saw two *monitors* listed in Device *Manager*
> and this *confused* *him* because he *has* only one *monitor*. *He*
> also *said* that *he* *has* the *Intel* 915 *graphics* chip. *He*
> should *not* *let* the Device *Manager* report bother *him* because,
> *as* the *site* I linked *to* points *out*, this *is* expected
> *behavior* from that *chipset*.
And yet you fail to say how that is any different than what I said could
be corruption. Nor do you state anything about the secondary display
device. The above paragraph is symantically null. If you don't see that,
then you're not qualified to reply to the OP.
>>>>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
>>>>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device
>>>>> Manager as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
>>>>>
>>>> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?
>>>
>>> A quick search turns up:
>>>
>>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
>>>
>>> So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of
>>> USENET is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
>>>
>> What does HP have to do with a Dell Computer? Besides, it doesn't
>> match what the OP is getting - One entry in display adapters and two
>> *different* entries in monitors. This is proprietary hardware.
>> *Every* computer manufacturer will do it differently and their
>> drivers won't be compatible, of that you can be sure.
>
> It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop or
> a netbook or what have you.
It sure as hell does. It's *their* hardware. *Not* Intel's. Intel
drivers won't work on name brand computers. Completely different video
cards made completely differently.
The behavior is the same. And where
> exactly did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
>
> Hey, I don't see GG posts, so I could have missed it. Enlighten me.
>
> Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
Where exactly did I say that there *could* only be one? I didn't. What I
said was that you will get similar names *not* identical ones. If you
get identical ones, then you have corrupted video drivers. In Both cases
you will have more than one monitor listed - only one is due to an
error. The only way to know what it's supposed to be is to remove *all*
the drivers of each and reboot. If you *then* get two monitors and two
different (but similarly names - such as Radeon XXX and Radeon XXX
secondary) names for the display adapters then you *know* there's a
second plug. You will not get the second monitor without a second plug.
Unless the driver is f*cked from the manufacturer, which could very well
be the case with the Dell example. Their explanation isn't right or
anywhere near complete.
freemont
> And yet you fail to say how that is any different than what I said could
> be corruption. Nor do you state anything about the secondary display
> device. The above paragraph is symantically null. If you don't see that,
> then you're not qualified to reply to the OP.
First of all, you'll have to provide a link to the definition of
"symantically". Have you made an adverb out of the antivirus company's
name?
Secondly, ever heard of Occam's razor? The OP says he sees duplicate
entries in Device Manager with a certain type of chipset that is known to
produce duplicate video entries in DM. It's something that people like me
- people who have actually worked and are working on computers for a
living - see every day and have seen hundreds of times. These Intel video
drivers produce duplicate entries in Windows's Device Manager. They do.
If you're not familiar with that, then you haven't worked on Windows
computers or with Intel drivers very much - it's as simple as that. It's
extremely common. Yet you want to convince the guy that his driver is
corrupted somehow.
There's not a damn thing wrong with his video driver unless the same
thing is wrong with thousands of other driver installations on thousands
of other computers for the last ten years.
>> It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop or a
>> netbook or what have you.
>
> It sure as hell does. It's *their* hardware. *Not* Intel's. Intel
> drivers won't work on name brand computers. Completely different video
> cards made completely differently.
Wow. Now there's a classic Chucktard line.
So Dell builds Intel's chipsets for them now?
"Intel drivers won't work on name brand computers." HA! Another one for
the file.
>> Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
>
> Where exactly did I say that there *could* only be one? I didn't.
Message-ID: <Xns9D06BEC...@127.0.0.1>
<quote>
Besides, it doesn't match what the OP is getting - One entry in display
adapters and two *different* entries in monitors.
</quote>
> What I
> said was that you will get similar names *not* identical ones. If you
> get identical ones, then you have corrupted video drivers. In Both cases
> you will have more than one monitor listed - only one is due to an
> error. The only way to know what it's supposed to be is to remove *all*
> the drivers of each and reboot. If you *then* get two monitors and two
> different (but similarly names - such as Radeon XXX and Radeon XXX
> secondary) names for the display adapters then you *know* there's a
> second plug. You will not get the second monitor without a second plug.
> Unless the driver is f*cked from the manufacturer, which could very well
> be the case with the Dell example. Their explanation isn't right or
> anywhere near complete.
First, it was an HP example. Second, no one on Earth would ever take your
opinion over their expertise.
Third, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, as usual. I
am someone who actually does in "real life" what you pretend to do
online, and I can see that as plain as day.
OP, I say again: just ignore it. It's "normal" for your computer to show
what it's showing.
chuckcar
news:00d05045$0$1614$c3e...@news.astraweb.com:
> On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:09:22 +0000, chuckcar writ:
>
>> And yet you fail to say how that is any different than what I said
>> could be corruption. Nor do you state anything about the secondary
>> display device. The above paragraph is symantically null. If you
>> don't see that, then you're not qualified to reply to the OP.
>
> First of all, you'll have to provide a link to the definition of
> "symantically". Have you made an adverb out of the antivirus company's
> name?
>
> Secondly, ever heard of Occam's razor? The OP says he sees duplicate
> entries in Device Manager with a certain type of chipset that is known
> to produce duplicate video entries in DM.
Yes, I've heard of it - and it only applies if there are no other
constraining rules or facts. Which isn't the case here. It best applies
for Scientific hypothese. That is cases where there's no empirical evidence
or mathematics to clarify things. *if* the OP could post again (probably
scared off by our argument) we could find out if there are indeed two
different display adapter entries for the same card. However that would
require two plugs for video - which the OP says he doesn't have.
> It's something that people
> like me - people who have actually worked and are working on computers
> for a living - see every day and have seen hundreds of times. These
> Intel video drivers produce duplicate entries in Windows's Device
> Manager. They do. If you're not familiar with that, then you haven't
> worked on Windows computers or with Intel drivers very much - it's as
> simple as that. It's extremely common. Yet you want to convince the
> guy that his driver is corrupted somehow.
>
Which is far *more* common - at least historically. I've seen my
assertion literally hundereds of times as well - working for one of
those name brand computer companies doing telephone tech support for two
years. Multiple monitors on one video card is a recent thing. The mere
fact that you have no knowledge of display driver corruption makes your
assertion about expertise extremely doubtful.
> There's not a damn thing wrong with his video driver unless the same
> thing is wrong with thousands of other driver installations on
> thousands of other computers for the last ten years.
>
I never said that. I *did* say there's something not right with that HP
problem,
>>> It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop
>>> or a netbook or what have you.
>>
>> It sure as hell does. It's *their* hardware. *Not* Intel's. Intel
>> drivers won't work on name brand computers. Completely different
>> video cards made completely differently.
>
> So Dell builds Intel's chipsets for them now?
>
No Intel builds *only* the chips. The video card and/or motherboard are
built by Dell/HP/IBM/Gateway etc.
> "Intel drivers won't work on name brand computers." HA! Another one
> for the file.
>
Better keep it. The 810 example I gave is a perfect example. The drivers
for Intel's video card don't work or even load on a HP computer with an
810 chipset. Fact.
>>> Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
>>
>> Where exactly did I say that there *could* only be one? I didn't.
>
> Message-ID: <Xns9D06BEC...@127.0.0.1>
>
> <quote>
> Besides, it doesn't match what the OP is getting - One entry in
> display adapters and two *different* entries in monitors.
> </quote>
>
Which is *more* than one entry in display adapters. You're wrong, and
your own quote showed it. Ignoring your creative editing out of my actual
meaning.
>> What I
>> said was that you will get similar names *not* identical ones. If you
>> get identical ones, then you have corrupted video drivers. In Both
>> cases you will have more than one monitor listed - only one is due to
>> an error. The only way to know what it's supposed to be is to remove
>> *all* the drivers of each and reboot. If you *then* get two monitors
>> and two different (but similarly names - such as Radeon XXX and
>> Radeon XXX secondary) names for the display adapters then you *know*
>> there's a second plug. You will not get the second monitor without a
>> second plug. Unless the driver is f*cked from the manufacturer, which
>> could very well be the case with the Dell example. Their explanation
>> isn't right or anywhere near complete.
>
> First, it was an HP example. Second, no one on Earth would ever take
> your opinion over their expertise.
>
The fact that you express that view only means you don't know anything
about what I have done here for the posters in the past going back
almost 10 years.
> Third, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, as usual.
> I am someone who actually does in "real life" what you pretend to do
> online, and I can see that as plain as day.
>
> OP, I say again: just ignore it. It's "normal" for your computer to
> show what it's showing.
And what *precisely* is that? You seem to not know the difference
between two identical entries for the video card and a dual entry for
two parts of the same card. Whithout being able to tell the difference,
your opinion doesn't mean anything.
freemont
> On 21 Jan 2010 03:00:11 GMT, freemont
> <freemont...@freemontsoffice.com> wrote:
>
>>First of all, you'll have to provide a link to the definition of
>>"symantically". Have you made an adverb out of the antivirus company's
>>name?
>
> Notice chucktard completely ignores that part of your message? :)
He's an idiot. I can't believe I got suckered into another argument with
him. I've gotta be more careful. :-)
/me shakes head in shame and resists the urge to respond to his latest
response full of inaccuracies, evasions and outright deceptions
Jordon
> freemont wrote in
>> chuckcar writ:
>> Secondly, ever heard of Occam's razor? The OP says he sees duplicate
>> entries in Device Manager with a certain type of chipset that is known
>> to produce duplicate video entries in DM.
> Yes, I've heard of it - and it only applies if there are no other
> constraining rules or facts.
Bull shit. It's dependent on there being other possible answers.
When you have two or more competing theories the simplest is
usually the correct one.
--
Jordon
Beauregard T. Shagnasty
> The fact that you express that view only means you don't know anything
> about what I have done here for the posters in the past going back
> almost 10 years.
Thanks for that! I needed a good laugh today!
(Everyone who has been here more than a few days knows what you've
done...)
--
-bts
-Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
chuckcar
news:98udnc_nO9fQ1MvW...@earthlink.com:
>
> "chuckcar" <ch...@nil.car> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D05C11...@127.0.0.1...
> Nope, still comes back
>
A followup. You never posted after this one.
I checked the Dell website and they mention a Dimension 3100/E310. Is
that your computer? They have drivers for your card there. That would be
the first alternate thing to try.
Specifically three versions apparently - they never say either way.
http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?c=us&l=en&cat=all&k=intel%2082915g%2F
gv%2F910gl
There's also the online forum, but there seems to be a *lot* more people
asking questions than actually getting answers. Perhaps Dell people
don't post there every day.
http://en.community.dell.com/forums/t/18552588.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=&s=gen
A relevent thread, although making a new one wouldn't be wrong I'd
think. A couple quick questions if you feel like posting here.
1. Do you get more than one entry in display adapters and if so what
are their *exact* names. Or the exact full name for the one as the case
may be.
2. What are the *exact* names all for the Listings under Monitors that
you get
3. What is the full model name for your actual monitor?
4. Just to ensure we understand each other completely, There is *only*
one video plug on the back of your computer? I don't just mean where you
have the one you're using, but only one at *all*.
Finally, this *may* also be an indication of a dying video card.
Entering the BIOS and setting defaults and then saving them is
*always* a safe thing to do in name brand consumer PC's. It might
also be a corrupted BIOS NVRAm and that will fix that problem.
Finally *only* after Someone from Dell says that this *is* a problem with
your computer should you attempt to update either your video or system BIOS.
If this is recommended, make *sure* you save a backup of whichever you do (or
both) when this update is done. And make *absolutely* sure you have the *exact*
right BIOS for your hardware. If you get it wrong, that hardware will no longer
work at *all* and will have to be replaced.
DAB
LOL well you are just all over usenet ;-)
Yes I am stalking you too!
�n�hw��f
news:1b3be38550b658e5...@tioat.net:
> Yes I am sucking you too!
>
>
HEY! Lets keep it above the fifty yard line...
--
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/
cageprisoners.com|www.snuhwolf.9f.com|www.eyeonpalin.org
_____ ____ ____ __ /\_/\ __ _ ______ _____
/ __/ |/ / / / / // // . . \\ \ |\ | / __ \ \ \ __\
_\ \/ / /_/ / _ / \ / \ \| \| \ \_\ \ \__\ _\
/___/_/|_/\____/_//_/ \_@_/ \__|\__|\____/\____\_\
Ferd.Berfle
"DAB" <K...@dodgit.com> wrote in message
news:1b3be38550b658e5...@tioat.net...
DAB
That never helped!