Re: A screen question.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
<p...@jostle.com> writes:
>Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>conditions?

What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your
part!

I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with wikipedia,
and it's a lot more complicated than I thought - so I'll go with my
original thought, that it means the lenses in your eyes mean you see the
world as either stretched or compressed vertically - circles appear as
ovals, and people appear either tall and thin or short and fat - and
your glasses correct for this. And you were wondering if it's possible
to find a monitor you can use without wearing your glasses.

Depending on your degree of astigmatism, an old CRT monitor with height
and/or width controls might be of use, but not only will those now be
hard to find, but I don't think the adjustment is very much.

An alternative would be to deliberately set your graphics card
(including the in-built one if it's a laptop) to a resolution that's the
wrong aspect ratio for your monitor. I've seen people do this often
enough in practice, by mistake (most commonly feeding a widescreen
monitor with a 4:3 signal); it had never occurred to me that it might
actually be useful!

If your astigmatism means you see the world stretched vertically, then
using a widescreen monitor (the common type nowadays), but with the
graphics card set to suit a 4:3 monitor, will give you fat pictures. If
you naturally see the world as short and fat, then using a widescreen
mode on a 4:3 monitor (you can still get them, I think - just harder to
find. Should be able to find them second-hand no problem!) should help.

Three problems with this "solution":

0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)

1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions. To get round this, you
might have to do one or more of the following: select "generic" rather
than specific monitor; use analogue (SVGA) rather than anything more
recent (IMO, the difference is far less than claimed in most cases - not
visible to me); even with SVGA, you might have to cut a wire/pin.

2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
(I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)

There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
picture.)

I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues - conventional
monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
and the possibility of using them sideways.

P. S.: before messing with resolutions (including going sideways), I'd
say it's worth getting hold of one of the free utilities that can store
your icon positions, and put them back: changing resolution does tend to
muck them up. I normally use iconoid (https://www.sillysot.com/ - yes,
that really is the URL!); another, slightly quirkier one but the only
one I know that actually has the option to save the settings in a real
file rather than buried in the registry somewhere, is desktopOK.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

science is not intended to be foolproof. Science is about crawling toward the
truth over time. - Scott Adams, 2015-2-2

[SC Tom]

"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:xC4Mn1Cj...@255soft.uk...

Unfortunately, unless your astigmatism is equal in both eyes, and your
vision is equal in both eyes as well, there's not much you can do to adjust
a monitor for that. As one who has 20/200 vision in one eye, 20/400 in the
other, and moderately bad astigmatism in only one eye (my "good" one, of
course), I can absolutely state that there is nothing that can be done to a
monitor that would help me see anything clearer without my specs :-)
--

SC Tom

[Johnny]

On Sun, 8 Sep 2019 11:08:35 +0100
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
> <p...@jostle.com> writes:
> >Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
> >to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
> >conditions?
>
> What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your
> part!
>
> I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with
> wikipedia, and it's a lot more complicated than I thought - so I'll
> go with my original thought, that it means the lenses in your eyes
> mean you see the world as either stretched or compressed vertically -
> circles appear as ovals, and people appear either tall and thin or
> short and fat - and your glasses correct for this. And you were
> wondering if it's possible to find a monitor you can use without
> wearing your glasses.

I have astigmatism and that is not how the world appears, nothing is
compressed or stretched.

In my case when looking at the letter E on an eye chart, the vertical
line is sharp and clear, but the horizontal lines are blurry.

Fortunately my eyesight is correctable to 20/20.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ql2qq6$84h$1...@dont-email.me>, SC Tom <s...@tom.net> writes:
>
>
>"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
>news:xC4Mn1Cj...@255soft.uk...
>> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
>><p...@jostle.com> writes:
>>>Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>>>to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>>>conditions?
>>
>> What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!
>>
>> I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with

[]

>Unfortunately, unless your astigmatism is equal in both eyes, and your
>vision is equal in both eyes as well, there's not much you can do to
>adjust a monitor for that. As one who has 20/200 vision in one eye,
>20/400 in the other, and moderately bad astigmatism in only one eye (my
>"good" one, of course), I can absolutely state that there is nothing
>that can be done to a monitor that would help me see anything clearer
>without my specs :-)

The original poster Peter Jason didn't say he only had it in one eye.

I you're still reading, Peter - what _is_ the nature of your
astigmatism: is it different _gain_ in the X and Y directions (making
circles look oval), different _focus_ (as described by Johnny and
Wikipedia), or something else? And _are_ your eyes different (to each
other)?

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Norman Tebbitt has the irritating quality of being much nicer in person than
he is in print. - Clive Anderson, RT 1996/10/12-18

[David E. Ross]

On 9/8/2019 9:43 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ql2qq6$84h$1...@dont-email.me>, SC Tom <s...@tom.net> writes:
>>
>>
>> "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
>> news:xC4Mn1Cj...@255soft.uk...
>>> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
>>> <p...@jostle.com> writes:
>>>> Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>>>> to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>>>> conditions?
>>>
>>> What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!
>>>
>>> I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with
> []
>> Unfortunately, unless your astigmatism is equal in both eyes, and your
>> vision is equal in both eyes as well, there's not much you can do to
>> adjust a monitor for that. As one who has 20/200 vision in one eye,
>> 20/400 in the other, and moderately bad astigmatism in only one eye (my
>> "good" one, of course), I can absolutely state that there is nothing
>> that can be done to a monitor that would help me see anything clearer
>> without my specs :-)
>
> The original poster Peter Jason didn't say he only had it in one eye.
>
> I you're still reading, Peter - what _is_ the nature of your
> astigmatism: is it different _gain_ in the X and Y directions (making
> circles look oval), different _focus_ (as described by Johnny and
> Wikipedia), or something else? And _are_ your eyes different (to each
> other)?
>

Astigmatism can be caused by an irregularity in the eye's cornea or
lens. It might be in only one eye. If it is in both eyes, it is often
not the same in each eye.

While the usual irregularity is a curvature that differs between the
vertical and horizontal, it is also possible that the curvature is "off"
on a diagonal. In some cases, however, the irregularity can be a
waviness in the cornea or lens.

Given all this, I really do not think any adjustment to a computer
monitor would substitute for eye glasses, contact lenses, or eye surgery.

--
David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>

Immigration authorities arrested 680 undocumented aliens in meat
processing facilities in Mississippi. Employing someone who is not
legally in the U.S. is also illegal. How many of the EMPLOYERS are
being criminally charged? If none, why not?

[Big Bad Bob]

On 2019-09-08 03:08, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
> <p...@jostle.com> writes:
>> Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>> to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>> conditions?
>
> What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!
>
> I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with wikipedia,
> and it's a lot more complicated than I thought

based on what optometrists do with glasses to correct for it,
astigmatisms are more than likely inconsistent focusing across various
parts of the eye. So whereas glasses correct for it, maybe you need
different prescriptions for close work than for "general vision"

some form of "computer only" glasses, seem to be the way to go.
Bifocals only work when you look down, and nobody does that with their
monitors [maybe phones/slabs but not desktops]

[Peter Jason]

Here are the current facts....
https://postimg.cc/QKKrrdpx
Of course I have the latest progressive lenses which work very well.
Adjustable eyeglasses can work but not too well at my level of
corrections.

Looking down onto the desk while writing & then up to look at the
screen might require a set of "inverse" progressives such as billiard
players use, and this might be the solution in my case.

[David E. Ross]

I have two pair of bifocal eye glasses. One pair is for general use,
with distance-viewing lenses on top and reading lenses on the bottom. I
use these for driving, around the house, viewing TV, and anything else
NOT involving a computer. The other pair is for computer use, with the
top lenses for sharp viewing at a distance of 1-3 arm-lengths (even a
bit more with some strain) and the same reading lenses on the bottom as
I have with my general pair.

I do not use a touch-screen computer. As I type this, I am sitting
about 2 arms-lengths from my monitor, slightly tilted back in my office
chair, and with my feet up on a footstool that is under my computer
desk. That is why the top lenses of my computer bifocals focus at 1-3
arm-lengths.

When I go to a museum, I bring my computer glasses with me. With them,
I do not need to stand real close (making the guards nervous) or far
away (where I cannot see details) to view an exhibit or piece of art.

For several years now, my ophthalmologist has said I am five years away
from needing cataract surgery. When I finally have it done, I will
request lens implants for distance and get new computer glasses. I will
also pay the difference between what Medicare pays so that the implants
correct for my astigmatism. I will then not require glasses except for
reading and using my computer.

[Carlos E.R.]

On 08/09/2019 12.08, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
> <p...@jostle.com> writes:
>> Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>> to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>> conditions?
>
> What a fascinating question, and excellent lateral thinking on your part!

(wikipedia is currently not working on my side, connection times out)

>
> I thought I knew what astigmatism was, and just checked with wikipedia,
> and it's a lot more complicated than I thought - so I'll go with my
> original thought, that it means the lenses in your eyes mean you see the
> world as either stretched or compressed vertically - circles appear as
> ovals, and people appear either tall and thin or short and fat - and
> your glasses correct for this. And you were wondering if it's possible
> to find a monitor you can use without wearing your glasses.

This might be corrected by software designed to deform the display, yes.
But the deformation in the eye also means, I understand, that the focus
changes, and that can not be corrected in the display.

You'd have to ask optics experts first. If they say that a deformation
of the display could compensate for astigmatism, then start looking for
software to achieve that.

Methinks that the user would get a headache that way: part of the visual
field corrected and part not.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/8/19 4:08 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
> <p...@jostle.com> writes:
>> Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>> to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>> conditions?

<snip>

> An alternative would be to deliberately set your graphics card
> (including the in-built one if it's a laptop) to a resolution that's the
> wrong aspect ratio for your monitor. I've seen people do this often
> enough in practice, by mistake (most commonly feeding a widescreen
> monitor with a 4:3 signal); it had never occurred to me that it might
> actually be useful!

Now... Add in some macular degeneration. That would be me. <VBG>

You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.

I bought a new Mac Mini to replace an aging iMac. I bought the iMac due
to the visual quality of the display. So I wanted a monitor with the
best video I could afford. So I went on a research trip.

I'd already learned some monitors cannot display light greys, light
blues, and thin lines. Although the line issue may be tied to the color
of the line. I don't know.

I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type panel.
So, that's what I bought.

And boy, am I glad I did. I learned some monitors also cannot display
light yellows!

> 0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
> means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
> resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
> blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
> glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)

Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.

I'd rather be able to read the screen with barely noticeable blurring,
than fight with the recommended resolution to figure out what is on the
screen.

With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a cheapie
monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative resolution
has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.

> 1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
> might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
> may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.

What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?

If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution. With
the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up and
down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that are
listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.

My Mac Mini only offers resolutions that are the correct aspect ratio.
And, they are same as what is offered by Windows, as far as I can tell.

> To get round this, you
> might have to do one or more of the following: select "generic" rather
> than specific monitor; use analogue (SVGA) rather than anything more
> recent (IMO, the difference is far less than claimed in most cases - not
> visible to me); even with SVGA, you might have to cut a wire/pin.

If you're using a laptop, need magnification, and are unwilling to buy
an external monitor, I'd recommend giving up now. SVGA (800X600) just
won't display enough data on the screen to be useful, IMO.

> 2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
> limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
> expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
> (I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
> sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
> simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)

I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.

> There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
> non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
> to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
> though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
> CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
> that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
> picture.)
>
> I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues - conventional
> monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
> and the possibility of using them sideways.

Agreed, check all avenues before choosing.

I purchased a 24" Asus Pro-Art monitor. $369, shipped and sold by
Amazon, for the Mac Mini. On my W7, W8, W10, Linux mint (KVM switched)
is a Dell U2412M. Both are IPS panels, although I didn't know anything
about the panel types when bought the Dell. Not quite as good, but it
was cheaper.

Input is display port, and based on limited options for testing HDMI
input, I'd avoid that option if possible. VGA was OK, but I had no
means to check DVI.

Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
16:10, I just don't want 16:9.

I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.

32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
prevented that.


--
Ken
MacOS 10.14.5
Firefox 67.0.4
Thunderbird 60.7
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ql6iea$91h$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
>On 9/8/19 4:08 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <jlh8nepfi0f7hvctt...@4ax.com>, Peter Jason
>> <p...@jostle.com> writes:
>>> Hi, I wear glasses for astigmatism etc and I wonder if it's possible
>>> to buy a monitor whose screen can be adjusted for this & similar
>>> conditions?
>

Taking this _just_ as astigmatism-meaning-wrong-aspect-ratio, which it
has become clear is far from the whole story ...

><snip>
>
>> An alternative would be to deliberately set your graphics card
>> (including the in-built one if it's a laptop) to a resolution that's the
>> wrong aspect ratio for your monitor. I've seen people do this often
>> enough in practice, by mistake (most commonly feeding a widescreen
>> monitor with a 4:3 signal); it had never occurred to me that it might
>> actually be useful!
>
>Now... Add in some macular degeneration. That would be me. <VBG>
>
>You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
>aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
>different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.

(I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)
[]

>I'd already learned some monitors cannot display light greys, light
>blues, and thin lines. Although the line issue may be tied to the
>color of the line. I don't know.

I'd be surprised if any monitor _used at its native resolution_ can't
display a one-pixel-wide line, unless as you say it's unable to
distinguish the colour of the line from the surrounding area (in which
case the thickness of the line wouldn't have much effect).

>
>I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
>panel. So, that's what I bought.

The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
you've found ...

>
>And boy, am I glad I did. I learned some monitors also cannot display
>light yellows!
>
>> 0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
>> means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
>> resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
>> blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
>> glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)
>
>Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
>and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
>extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.

Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.

>
>I'd rather be able to read the screen with barely noticeable blurring,
>than fight with the recommended resolution to figure out what is on the
>screen.

I find native resolution the best, if only for psychological reasons (if
I "know" there's blurring due to using the wrong one, then I think I'll
see it even if I can't really!).

>
>With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
>than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
>cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
>resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.

The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong
resolution - for example, 640Ũ480 and 800Ũ600 are both 4:3, but not in
integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
for that for people with poor sight though.

>
>> 1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
>> might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
>> may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.
>
>What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?

Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as I
tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.

>
>If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
>resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
>With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
>and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
>are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.

Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
_possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
*distortion*, which is probably more important.
[]

>If you're using a laptop, need magnification, and are unwilling to buy
>an external monitor, I'd recommend giving up now. SVGA (800X600) just
>won't display enough data on the screen to be useful, IMO.

Certainly, a lot of modern software - especially web page design - is no
friend of the visually impaired, in many ways. (Many web designers
assume far too big a screen even for the rest of us, but that's a
different subject!) But you are right. I do have an interest in access
for the VH/VI, so I attend the odd show on the matter. For those for
whom magnification does work - i. e. they do have some sight - blowing
up just part of the screen seems to be the preferred option, rather than
using SVGA or less.

>
>> 2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
>> limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
>> expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
>> (I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
>> sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
>> simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)
>
>I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
>not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
>on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.

If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)

>
>> There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
>> non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
>> to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
>> though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
>> CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
>> that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
>> picture.)
>> I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues -
>>conventional
>> monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
>> and the possibility of using them sideways.
>
>Agreed, check all avenues before choosing.
>
>I purchased a 24" Asus Pro-Art monitor. $369, shipped and sold by
>Amazon, for the Mac Mini. On my W7, W8, W10, Linux mint (KVM switched)
>is a Dell U2412M. Both are IPS panels, although I didn't know anything
>about the panel types when bought the Dell. Not quite as good, but it
>was cheaper.
>
>Input is display port, and based on limited options for testing HDMI
>input, I'd avoid that option if possible. VGA was OK, but I had no
>means to check DVI.
>
>Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
>16:10, I just don't want 16:9.

Interesting.

>
>I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.
>
>32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
>prevented that.
>
>

Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
that is.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

`Where a calculator on the Eniac is equipped with 18,000 vacuum tubes and weighs
30 tons, computers in the future may have only 1,000 vacuum tubes and perhaps
weigh 1.5 tons.' Popular Mechanics, March 1949 (quoted in Computing 1999-12-16)

[nospam]

In article <lV+5C895...@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >
> >You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
> >aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
> >different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.
>
> (I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
> monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
> 4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
> them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)

aspect ratio is not the same as resolution.

50 different resolutions seems high, but there's definitely more than
5-10, from 640x480 (they do still exist) all the way up to 8k displays,
in various sizes and aspect ratios, and even more if you count mobile
devices.

> >
> >I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
> >panel. So, that's what I bought.
>
> The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
> provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
> you've found ...

it's obviously a typo for ips, in plane switching.

> >> 0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
> >> means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
> >> resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
> >> blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
> >> glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)
> >
> >Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
> >and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
> >extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.
>
> Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
> the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
> some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.

with modern hidpi displays, where individual pixels are smaller than
what the eye can resolve, there is no perceptible blur.

> >
> >If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
> >resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
> >With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
> >and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
> >are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.
>
> Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios.

see above. it does not.

> It is
> _possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
> though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
> more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
> caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
> ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
> *distortion*, which is probably more important.

changing the aspect ratio will normally letterbox.

> >
> >I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
> >not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
> >on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.
>
> If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
> with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
> distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
> available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
> on.

that's not what astigmatism does.

> I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
> became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
> but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
> monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)

it was never a fad and is still often used, usually with multiple
displays, one of which is in portrait orientation.

[Ken Springer]

It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.

For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.

The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
at that spec.

> []
>> I'd already learned some monitors cannot display light greys, light
>> blues, and thin lines. Although the line issue may be tied to the
>> color of the line. I don't know.
>
> I'd be surprised if any monitor _used at its native resolution_ can't
> display a one-pixel-wide line, unless as you say it's unable to
> distinguish the colour of the line from the surrounding area (in which
> case the thickness of the line wouldn't have much effect).

I discovered all of this on websites, not with any programming on my part.

And the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance
management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it,
used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put any
kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The monitor
displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the fields
was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine where the
input field was! LOL

One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me to
about a 40-45˚ angle, and there was the grey background. Not a
practical solution, though. <VBG>

>> I learned the best LCD panel for display of colors is an ISP type
>> panel. So, that's what I bought.
>
> The best interpretation of that (to me it's "internet service
> provider"!) is "image signal processor". I'm dubious, but if that's what
> you've found ...

Paul and nospam are correct, it should be IPS. Muscle memory, I guess,
but at the same time, I don't see some letters that are "right in front
of me". And in this case, spell checking may be useless.

For instance, at the native resolution, maybe I don't see the letters
"abcd". But if if I go to the next lower resolution with the same
aspect ratio, it may be the only letters that are missing are "cd" due
to the magnification effect.

When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:

|
\
|
|
/
|

More or less. LOL

I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you can't
get to them!

All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for correcting
the screen display so I can see it.

I don't think MS gives a damn.

>> And boy, am I glad I did. I learned some monitors also cannot display
>> light yellows!
>>
>>> 0. With any monitor that has a "native resolution", i. e. pixels, which
>>> means any modern flat-screen monitor, using it at other than its native
>>> resolution (or an integral fraction thereof) will result in _some_
>>> blurring. This may still be acceptable as the cost for not wearing your
>>> glasses. (It won't apply to a CRT monitor!)
>>
>> Correct on the blurring, but depending on what you buy for an monitor,
>> and the settins you use, blurring may not be noticeable, although the
>> extent of failure of your eyesight may come into play.
>
> Agreed. Though intuitively using the wrong resolution seems very wrong,
> the blurring _can_ be not very noticeable - and, as you say, if you have
> some eyesight conditions it may be not noticeable at all.

It took me a while to get past that mental impediment. But it's now my
"new normal", and I don't even notice it unless I think about it. I
think it helped when I viewed the situation as just looking at a smaller
monitor through a full screen magnifying glass.

>> I'd rather be able to read the screen with barely noticeable blurring,
>> than fight with the recommended resolution to figure out what is on the
>> screen.
>
> I find native resolution the best, if only for psychological reasons (if
> I "know" there's blurring due to using the wrong one, then I think I'll
> see it even if I can't really!).

The mind does do funny things, doesn't it?

>> With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
>> than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
>> cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
>> resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
>
> The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong

> resolution - for example, 640×480 and 800×600 are both 4:3, but not in

> integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
> for that for people with poor sight though.

But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found
an example of 320 X 240.

>>> 1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
>>> might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
>>> may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.
>>
>> What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?
>
> Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as I
> tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
> graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
> because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
> the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
> monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.

I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out,
when you move the slider in the resolution display.

>> If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
>> resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
>> With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
>> and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
>> are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.
>
> Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
> _possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
> though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
> more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
> caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
> ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
> *distortion*, which is probably more important.

No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
as a square, not a rectangle.

> []
>> If you're using a laptop, need magnification, and are unwilling to buy
>> an external monitor, I'd recommend giving up now. SVGA (800X600) just
>> won't display enough data on the screen to be useful, IMO.
>
> Certainly, a lot of modern software - especially web page design - is no
> friend of the visually impaired, in many ways. (Many web designers
> assume far too big a screen even for the rest of us, but that's a
> different subject!) But you are right. I do have an interest in access
> for the VH/VI, so I attend the odd show on the matter. For those for
> whom magnification does work - i. e. they do have some sight - blowing
> up just part of the screen seems to be the preferred option, rather than
> using SVGA or less.
>>
>>> 2. The range of ratio "corrections" (distortions) available will be
>>> limited - possibly only to the difference between 16:9 and 4:3. You can
>>> expand the range somewhat by turning your monitor sideways: modern OSs
>>> (I think XP on, possibly earlier) have the ability to turn the picture
>>> sideways, though how to invoke it isn't widely known. (Sometimes it's as
>>> simple as the arrow keys with other keys.)

I just remembered this today:

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.picclickimg.com%2Fd%2Fl400%2Fpict%2F123519789112_%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-Radius.jpg&imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpicclick.com%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-Radius-123519789112.html&docid=dh6W7UdnqnEM5M&tbnid=LLDNlXsb-vBhzM%3A&vet=10ahUKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRgQMwhgKA0wDQ..i&w=400&h=365&bih=919&biw=1432&q=radius%20monitor&ved=0ahUKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRgQMwhgKA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

This is before I became a Mac user.

This Pro-Art rotates 90˚ and is 16:10.

>> I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
>> not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
>> on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.
>
> If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the world
> with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
> distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
> available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
> on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
> became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
> but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
> monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)

Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
turned 90˚ to portrait orientation.

>>> There are utilities that can force your graphics card to output
>>> non-standard resolutions; I imagine how well these work varies from card
>>> to card. (Note that in extreme cases this _could_ damage the monitor,
>>> though I think only for very old CRT ones - modern ones, including later
>>> CRT ones, usually detect "out-of-range" feeds, and pop up a notice to
>>> that effect on screen, or at least just go blank, or display an unlocked
>>> picture.)
>>> I'd say it's definitely worth investigating these avenues -
>>> conventional
>>> monitors (of the two shapes) used with unorthodox resolution settings,
>>> and the possibility of using them sideways.
>>
>> Agreed, check all avenues before choosing.
>>
>> I purchased a 24" Asus Pro-Art monitor. $369, shipped and sold by
>> Amazon, for the Mac Mini. On my W7, W8, W10, Linux mint (KVM switched)
>> is a Dell U2412M. Both are IPS panels, although I didn't know anything
>> about the panel types when bought the Dell. Not quite as good, but it
>> was cheaper.
>>
>> Input is display port, and based on limited options for testing HDMI
>> input, I'd avoid that option if possible. VGA was OK, but I had no
>> means to check DVI.
>>
>> Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
>> 16:10, I just don't want 16:9.
>
> Interesting.

I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
feels "cramped".

I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had
a 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer,
and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever
since.

>> I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.
>>
>> 32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
>> prevented that.
>>
>>
> Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
> wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
> that is.

My "main" systems are in computer desks with this design style:

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1432&bih=919&ei=87Z3XeyeJYHZ-gT2joGABw&q=computer+hutch+desk&oq=computer+hutch&gs_l=img.1.2.0l4j0i5i30l2j0i8i30l4.587.2507..5237...0.0..0.89.988.14......0....1..gws-wiz-img.3jCItgMUz-E

Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm
sure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS
monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size.

And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an
apartment, or selling your house? <G>

[nospam]

In article <ql8e53$v0b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

> >> You may remember the thread I started where I asked about computing the
> >> aspect ratio of a monitor based on screen resolution. I've found @50
> >> different resolutions you may come across, depending on hardware.
> >
> > (I assume you meant "~50".) Assuming you mean native resolution of the
> > monitor, I'm surprised there are _that_ many. I'd have expected 5 to 10:
> > 4:3, 16:9, 16:10, and one or two others. (Twice as many if you include
> > them rotated, i. e. 3:4 etcetera.)
>
> It's interesting how language changes. When I was growing up, the "@"
> was also used to mean "about". I wonder if that has to do with the
> capabilties, or lack of, of typewriters.
>
> For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I
> actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
> one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
> using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.
>
> The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
> and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

> When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
> read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
> for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
> at that spec.

pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays
having the smallest.

<https://www.sven.de/dpi/>

>
> >> With my situation, the blurring of the screen is not noticeable. More
> >> than likely, that's the result of a combo of factors, it's not a
> >> cheapie monitor, It's a monitor and not a TV, the chosen alternative
> >> resolution has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
> >
> > The right aspect ratio won't _necessarily_ avoid blurring due to wrong

> > resolution - for example, 640*480 and 800*600 are both 4:3, but not in

> > integral ratio. The "everything bigger" effect may more than compensate
> > for that for people with poor sight though.
>
> But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not found
> an example of 320 X 240.

not for a computer, you won't, since that's far too small to be usable.
even 800x600 is too small these days.

something that low would be suitable for a status display or perhaps on
the back of a cheap camera.

> >> If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
> >> resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
> >> With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
> >> and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
> >> are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.
> >
> > Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
> > _possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
> > though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
> > more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
> > caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
> > ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
> > *distortion*, which is probably more important.
>
> No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
> as a square, not a rectangle.

all lcds do that.

> I just remembered this today:
>
>
> https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.picclickimg.com%2Fd%2Fl
> 400%2Fpict%2F123519789112_%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-Radius.jpg
> &imgrefurl=https%3A%2F%2Fpicclick.com%2FRARE-VINTAGE-Apple-Quadra-700-kit-with-
> Radius-123519789112.html&docid=dh6W7UdnqnEM5M&tbnid=LLDNlXsb-vBhzM%3A&vet=10ah
> UKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRgQMwhgKA0wDQ..i&w=400&h=365&bih=919&biw=1432&q=rad
> ius%20monitor&ved=0ahUKEwi2naCewsbkAhVhneAKHRM_BRgQMwhgKA0wDQ&iact=mrc&uact=8

the actual image url is:
<https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQchgU-lI_eK2OV4Gz
Fkt9oWTfdL0sHR3DqUQ0Ti8p8u9mmDK-D>

that's the radius pivot, which not only physically rotated, but the
desktop would redraw with the new aspect ratio when it was rotated.

<https://uploads.ifdesign.de/award_img_85/conv_18432_1991_electro_180.jp
g>

now, the real fun is using an ultrawide display in portrait mode :)

landscape:
<https://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2019/01/dellultrawide1-800x450.jp
g>
portrait:
<https://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2019/01/dellultrawide2-800x450.jp
g>

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ql8e53$v0b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
[]

>For the common computer monitor aspect ratios, don't forget 5:4. I

Crikey, I hadn't come across 5:4 since the early days of TV ...

>actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found

... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just
thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums.

>one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
>using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.
>
>The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
>and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.

Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions
than ratios.

>
>When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier
>to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different
>sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit
>looking at that spec.

They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of
the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels
have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into
advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be
individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If
you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_
sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price -
end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.)
[]

>And the width may not be of importance. There's an online maintenance
>management software called Podio. The program, when I was using it,
>used one of those light greys as a background. But they did not put
>any kind of border around the fields you needed to fill in. The
>monitor displayed the background as white, and the fill color of the
>fields was... you guessed it, white. LOL Made it hard to determine
>where the input field was! LOL
>
>One day, out of curiosity, I tilted the monitor top edge away from me

>to about a 40-450 >practical solution, though. <VBG>

Ah, the infamous viewing angle problem!
[]

>When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:
>
>|
> \
> |
> |
> /
>|
>
>More or less. LOL

Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will
fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
don't move, to preserve alignment.

>
>I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
>150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
>windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
>buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
>can't get to them!

The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.

>
>All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
>stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for
>correcting the screen display so I can see it.
>
>I don't think MS gives a damn.

Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's
_some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to
increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't
matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such
"standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party
software.
[]

>But the integral resolution may not exist. For instance, I've not
>found an example of 320 X 240.

No, but - assuming you can set that as a resolution these days! (I
thought 640×480 was the minimum for, maybe, Windows '9x, and that went
up to 800×600 for, possibly, XP) - there would be no _blurring_ if
viewed on a monitor of native resolution 640×480, or 1280×960; each
320×240 pixel would actually occupy a whole number of native pixels. (In
these hypothetical examples, 2×2 or 4×4.)

>
>>>> 1. Some modern monitors and graphics cards talk to each other, which
>>>> might mean that the graphics card knows what shape the monitor is, and
>>>> may refuse to offer "incorrect" resolutions.
>>>
>>> What's your definition of "incorrect" resolutions?
>> Not mine, the hardware/firmware! I haven't really looked into it as
>>

>> tend to use native anyway, but I have encountered cases where I know the
>> graphics card can offer some resolutions that Windows is not listing
>> because it knows they don't suit a particular monitor - either because
>> the user has told Windows what monitor they're using, or because the
>> monitor has "told" Windows something about itself over plug-and-play.
>
>I wonder if those aren't the resolutions you see that are greyed out,
>when you move the slider in the resolution display.

You might be right about the presentation (greyed out rows). I'll admit
I haven't really looked at how the options are presented for an edition
or two of Windows. I've just looked, and I see what you mean about a
slider and greyed options on Windows 7.

>
>>> If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
>>> resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.

[]

>No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
>as a square, not a rectangle.

Mine too. When shortscreen displays first started to be the norm,
though, I was amazed how many people accepted squashed displays - or,
even, seemed not to notice that they _were_ squashed. It has improved of
late as shortscreen has become the norm for both monitor and OS.
[]
>This Pro-Art rotates 900
Or 8:5 (-:

>
>>> I think the need for rotating the monitor is generally limited. You're
>>> not going to gain anything visually from what I can see with my testing
>>> on this monitor. Instead of having 1920 X 1200, you have 1200 X 1920.
>> If you have the form of astigmatism that _just_ makes you see the
>>world
>> with the wrong aspect ratio, it _could_ help. Depends on whether your
>> distortion matches (in the other direction) one of the distortions
>> available by playing with resolution settings, monitor rotation, and so
>> on. I agree, though, monitor rotation is less used these days; it first
>> became a fad with word processing where it matches paper shape better,
>> but these days people tend to use multiple side-by-side windows on a big
>> monitor. (And often multiple monitors too.)
>
>Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
>newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been

>turned 900
You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough
approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people
were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had
been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer
use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two
portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still
work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that
certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in. (Even for
movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row
of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly
introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So
we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time.
[]

>>> Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
>>> 16:10, I just don't want 16:9.
>> Interesting.
>
>I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
>enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
>feels "cramped".

See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple
windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3;
probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to.

>
>I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
>estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had

Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big
old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most
purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends
(especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the
screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good.

>a 19" Atari branded Moniterm B&W monitor attached to a TT030 computer,
>and simply loved it!! Gave the system away, and have regretted it ever
>since.

If we're talking CRT, B&W was always intrinsically higher resolution
than colour.

>
>>> I wanted to go 27", but but couldn't find anything that fit my specs.
>>>
>>> 32" is what I really would have liked, but physical, available space
>>> prevented that.
>>>

32" CRTs were big, heavy beasts.

>>>
>> Could you rearrange your working environment so you could use
>> wall-mounting (or on a pivot arm)? Assuming you can find an 8:5 32",
>> that is.
>
>My "main" systems are in computer desks with this design style:
>
>https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch&source=hp&biw=1432&bih=919&ei=87Z
>3XeyeJYHZ-gT2joGABw&q=computer+hutch+desk&oq=computer+hutch&gs_l=img.1.2
>.0l4j0i5i30l2j0i8i30l4.587.2507..5237...0.0..0.89.988.14......0....1..gw
>s-wiz-img.3jCItgMUz-E
>
>Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
>is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm

Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages
of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.

>sure the physical vertical dimension would be an issue. But an IPS
>monitor seemed to be nonexistent in that size.
>
>And with anything wall mounted, what happens if you are renting an
>apartment, or selling your house? <G>
>

Good question! I suppose you could use a floor stand, but that'd have to
be pretty heavy - or some sort of arm thing attached to the desk.

>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

I've never really "got" sport or physical exercise. The only muscle I've ever
enjoyed exercising is the one between my ears. - Beryl Hales, Radio Times
24-30 March 2012

[Ken Springer]

On 9/10/19 9:32 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <ql8e53$v0b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
>> and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.
>
> which one is that, where the resolution is not an even number?

Aw, crap. That should be screen resolutions is 57, and one of the
resolutions works out to be an aspect ratio of 683:386. But I see Paul
apparently figured out my mistake.

>> When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier to
>> read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different sizes
>> for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit looking
>> at that spec.
>
> pixels do have different sizes, and by quite a bit, with hidpi displays
> having the smallest.

It may be I gave up too soon.

<snip>

>>>> If magnification is something you need, you will want an alternative
>>>> resolution that has the same aspect ratio as the native resolution.
>>>> With the Windows units I've tested, dragging the resolution slider up
>>>> and down will show multiple options, but only those resolutions that
>>>> are listed when you are not dragging the slider have the same aspect ratio.
>>>
>>> Magnification _without_ *blurring* would need integral ratios. It is
>>> _possible_ that the integer could be different in the two dimensions,
>>> though I suspect the right ratios for that don't exist in practice. It's
>>> more likely, if you need magnification, that you won't see the blurring
>>> caused by a non-integral ratio, and as you say in that situation
>>> ensuring the same aspect ratio will give you magnification without
>>> *distortion*, which is probably more important.
>>
>> No distortion is one of my "specs". You want a square to be displayed
>> as a square, not a rectangle.
>
> all lcds do that.

As long as the screen resolution in use has an aspect ratio that is
correct for the monitor in use.

[nospam]

In article <ql9k75$d32$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

that doesn't change the specs of the display.

obviously, whatever is displayed can be stretched or compressed in all
sorts of ways, including compensating for mismatched aspect ratios.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ql8e53$v0b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <word...@greeleynet.com> writes:

<snip>

>> actually have a monitor with that ratio. 1280 X 1024, SXGA. I found
>
> ... or thought I hadn't, but I have come across that one! I'd just
> thought it was the next one up from 1024×768, and hadn't done the sums.

I thought the same thing, years ago, when I was experimenting with
screen resolutions on a CRT monitor. Wanted the highest resolution I
could comfortably use. Then, I noticed that 1280X1024 just didn't look
right, so did the numbers.

>> one other screen resolution with this ratio, 2560 X2048, QSHGA. When
>> using the occasional laptop, I'll drag my 5:4 monitor out and use it.
>>
>> The number of aspect ratios I've found is 57. Some are really strange,
>> and I've no idea where they are used. One works out to be 683:384.
>
> Do you _mean_ ratios or resolutions? There are a lot more resolutions
> than ratios.

OH, I meant resolutions, ans noted in my reply to nospam.

>> When I first started this investigation into making the screen easier
>> to read, I was expecting to find some monitors to have a different
>> sizes for the individual pixel. But apparently they don't, so I quit
>> looking at that spec.
>
> They _do_ vary, but not as much as you'd think; at any one date, most of
> the panels on sale will have a similar pixel pitch, i. e. bigger panels
> have more pixels. Within a broad range, anyway; if you get into
> advertising panels, things are different, but those tend to be
> individual LEDs these days anyway. (And 'phones are different again.) If
> you don't have visual acuity (such as some eye problems), you _can_
> sometimes find a big low-resolution panel (big pixels) at a low price -
> end of line, or of course second-hand. (I think I have a 20" 1024×768.)

I think it may have more effect on the quality of the image, than
anything else.

> []
>> When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:
>>
>> |
>> \
>> |
>> |
>> /
>> |
>>
>> More or less. LOL
>
> Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions) will
> fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
> don't move, to preserve alignment.

Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that.

>> I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
>> 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
>> windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
>> buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
>> can't get to them!
>
> The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
> honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
> enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
> letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.

They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them?

>> All of this is just part of the reason I won't be using W10, and will
>> stick to W7 when I use Windows. W7 gives me more options for
>> correcting the screen display so I can see it.
>>
>> I don't think MS gives a damn.
>
> Worse: I don't think enough of them _know_ about these matters. There's
> _some_ attempt - I'd like to think it _is_ more than just "good PR" - to
> increase provision for disabilities, but I think such matters aren't
> matched by adequate programming knowledge. And certainly any such
> "standards" are hardly enforced at all when it comes to third party
> software.

The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be
adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it.

<snip>

>> This Pro-Art rotates 900
> Or 8:5 (-:

Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used the
degree sign when I typed the message.

<snip>

>> Even side by side isn't as good, especially for page layout in
>> newspapers, or editing a widescreen photo where the camera has been
>> turned 900

Another place where I typed the degree sign.

> You won't change the shape now. Shortscreen came in, to a rough
> approximation, when someone in the marketing departments thought people
> were going to be watching movies on their computers, since movies had
> been shortscreen for some decades. It's _not_ ideal for most computer
> use; arguably it's not so bad now monitors are big enough to display two
> portrait windows side by side (though in practice lots of people still
> work maximised, i. e. the "two windows" argument doesn't wash), but that
> certainly wasn't the case when the shape change came in.

When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just
never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
done faster.

> (Even for
> movies, the shortscreen format isn't _that_ wonderful - fine for a row
> of "Injuns" on the horizon, or someone lying down; it was mainly
> introduced to be something different to TV. But that's history ...) So
> we're stuck with horizontal shortscreen, most of the time.

You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.

> []
>>>> Both have an aspect ration of 16:10. After 10+ years of the iMac with
>>>> 16:10, I just don't want 16:9.
>>> Interesting.
>>
>> I found it amazing how much that extra vertical unit affects my
>> enjoyment of what I'm doing. Now, when I use a 16:9 screen, I find it
>> feels "cramped".
>
> See above re screen shapes. Though I've got used to having multiple
> windows open now, and might find it difficult to go back to 4:3;
> probably OK if it was the same _width_ (and resolution) as I'm used to.

If I'm using a laptop with a smaller screen, I have no problem using my
5:4 monitor. It comes closer to what the owner of the laptop will see
when I'm finished. IIRC, it may have a DVI video input, too.

>> I immediately became a convert to the idea of "the more screen real
>> estate, the better" when I went from a 14" to a 17" CRT monitor. I had
>
> Provided you've got room for it, bigger is always better! I have a big
> old laptop that has a 17" screen: it's rather underpowered for most
> purposes, but what I use it for - TeamViewer support of friends
> (especially blind ones; their description of what they "see" on the
> screen is often _very_ different to what I'd say!) - it's good.

Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you.
Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer.

<snip>

>> Mine are much smaller in width that those shown. In one, 24" diagonal
>> is all that will fit. In the other , 27" diagonal *might* fit, but I'm
>
> Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the advantages
> of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
> still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
> monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
> wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
> some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.

The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at
least 10 years older.

<snip>

[Char Jackson]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
<word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

>When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone
else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe.

>I guess they just
>never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
>done faster.

Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <ql9o1q$3lf$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
>On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <ql8e53$v0b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>> <word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
[]
>>> When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:
>>>
>>> |
>>> \
>>> |
>>> |
>>> /
>>> |
>>>
>>> More or less. LOL
>> Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions)
>>will
>> fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
>> don't move, to preserve alignment.
>
>Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that.

_Could_ a _contact_ lens - or surgically attached one? In other words,
is the distortion in your lens, retina, or image processing brainware?

>
>>> I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
>>> 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
>>> windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
>>> buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
>>> can't get to them!
>> The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
>> honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
>> enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
>> letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.
>
>They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them?

Good question. (By the way, when I was looking yesterday, this system
only offered 100% and 125%. No 150%.) Probably lethargy.
[]

>The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be
>adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it.

If pressed, they'd probably say they removed those settings because some
people change them then don't remember how (or _that_) they did, and
think something's wrong. Rather like you could change various aspects of
the display (colours, widths, fonts ...) in Windows 95 - and still could
in '98, but had to press an "Advanced" button to get at them (-:.

>
><snip>
>
>>> This Pro-Art rotates 900
>> Or 8:5 (-:
>
>Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used
>the degree sign when I typed the message.

Yes. At least, I didn't amend the quoted text; I think it had been
amended by the time I got it, rather than my system, which can display
the ° sign OK. (That's the degree sign, in case it has been amended by
the time _you_ see it.)
>
><snip>
(I use "[]" to mean the same thing.)
[]

>When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe. I guess they just
>never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
>done faster.

Me too, though we should be aware of Char's view (-:.
[]

>You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.

Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie
scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its
introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing
was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for,
which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its
introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we
are. (And it's preferable to VVS!)
[]

>Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you.
>Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer.

Have you had the false diagnosis of commercial use? (When I got it, I
looked into the pricing: it's such a good utility that I would have
considered it. But it's so high it really is only for the professional
user - especially as it's monthly rather than a one-off.)
[]

>> Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the
>>advantages
>> of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
>> still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
>> monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
>> wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
>> some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.
>
>The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at
>least 10 years older.

Ah, so designed in the CRT era; fair enough. I assumed that the ones
(computer desks) on the page you gave me a link to were mostly new ones,
and I was surprised they all still showed the monitor as standing in one
of the boxes, rather than fixed thus wasting less space.
>
><snip>

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Never be led astray onto the path of virtue.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <6ssgne91red6rdpq5...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson

<no...@none.invalid> writes:
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
><word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>>When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>>it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.
>
>I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone
>else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe.

Point taken - but, the happy medium is somewhere in between (never
saying _anything_ when we see someone doing something in a way we think
could be changed to benefit _them_, and always saying "do it my way").
Some softwares (word processing often) default to maximised, which may
be appropriate for some users but not all, especially where a large (and
non-portrait) monitor is in use, but some users may never have thought
of changing it (or in some cases may not be aware they can), so
_suggestion_ is never out of place, if made diplomatically.

>
>>I guess they just
>>never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
>>done faster.
>
>Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them.
>

Nothing lost by asking, though, as long as you accept that answer if
they give it.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here: this is the war room!" (Dr. Strangelove)

[nospam]

In article <zoUstWqd...@255soft.uk>, J. P. Gilliver (John)

<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

> >You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.
>
> Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie
> scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its
> introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing
> was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for,
> which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its
> introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we
> are. (And it's preferable to VVS!)

the reason widescreen became popular was less about watching movies and
more about *creating* them along with a wide variety of other content.

<https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/554247-pip-shotcut.jpg?thumb=y&wi
dth=980&height=2160>
<https://assets.pcmag.com/media/images/571284-apple-final-cut-pro-x.png?
thumb=y&width=980&height=549>
<https://blogsimages.adobe.com/photoshop/files/2013/04/Screen-Shot-2013-
04-12-at-5.17.52-PM.png>
<https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-GwdHsaNhcVM/W3g4CDPQaKI/AAAAAAAAAag/LMN5Jc5V
V70bqeOXeNnS_nN33rkhUvnTACEwYBhgL/s1600/maxresdefault%2B%25281%2529.jpg>

<https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/visualstudio/ide/media/vs-2019/pr-exp
erience.png?view=vs-2019>

[Rabid Robot]

I'm tempted to agree with you here.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/11/19 4:58 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <6ssgne91red6rdpq5...@4ax.com>, Char Jackson
> <no...@none.invalid> writes:
>> On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
>> <word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>>> it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.
>>
>> I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone
>> else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe.
>
> Point taken - but, the happy medium is somewhere in between (never
> saying _anything_ when we see someone doing something in a way we think
> could be changed to benefit _them_, and always saying "do it my way").
> Some softwares (word processing often) default to maximised, which may
> be appropriate for some users but not all, especially where a large (and
> non-portrait) monitor is in use, but some users may never have thought
> of changing it (or in some cases may not be aware they can), so
> _suggestion_ is never out of place, if made diplomatically.

I've found software generally only opens maximized when run for the
first time. After that, window size and position is remembered.

>>> I guess they just
>>> never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
>>> done faster.
>>
>> Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them.
>>
> Nothing lost by asking, though, as long as you accept that answer if
> they give it.
>


--

[Ken Springer]

On 9/11/19 4:51 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <ql9o1q$3lf$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
>> On 9/10/19 2:49 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>>> In message <ql8e53$v0b$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
>>> <word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
> []
>>>> When I look at a vertical straight line, this is what I see:
>>>>
>>>> |
>>>> \
>>>> |
>>>> |
>>>> /
>>>> |
>>>>
>>>> More or less. LOL
>>> Oh dear! I don't think _any_ monitor (or playing with resolutions)
>>> will
>>> fix that )-:. I can't see how glasses will, either, unless your eyeballs
>>> don't move, to preserve alignment.
>>
>> Yep. Nothing except a new eyeball will fix that.
>
> _Could_ a _contact_ lens - or surgically attached one? In other words,
> is the distortion in your lens, retina, or image processing brainware?

A contact lens would have to be oriented correctly when you put them in.
Possibly new lenses, as you get with cataract surgery, but then what
do you do if you eyeball changes? Thee surgery is quick, but it isn't
cheap.

>>>> I experimented with the options of increasing the text size by 125% or
>>>> 150%. Bit this does not change the size of the text in menus in the
>>>> windows. And, if the situation is right, dialog boxes may have the
>>>> buttons you need to click on off the screen to the bottom, and you
>>>> can't get to them!
>>> The text size manipulations aren't great - and many softwares don't
>>> honour them properly, so if you _do_ increase text size, they don't
>>> enlarge the box it goes in, so you end up with either overlapping
>>> letters, or text spilling out of the box )-:.
>>
>> They're so crappy, why do they bother to keep them?
>
> Good question. (By the way, when I was looking yesterday, this system
> only offered 100% and 125%. No 150%.) Probably lethargy.

I noticed no 150% just recently, somewhere. I wonder if that was a
laptop with a smaller screen.

[]
>> The really sad thing is, for everything in a window, it could be
>> adjusted and changed in XP and earlier. But then they got rid of it.
>
> If pressed, they'd probably say they removed those settings because some
> people change them then don't remember how (or _that_) they did, and
> think something's wrong. Rather like you could change various aspects of
> the display (colours, widths, fonts ...) in Windows 95 - and still could
> in '98, but had to press an "Advanced" button to get at them (-:.

That's a possibility I hadn't thought of. End result is penalizing the
majority for just a few ignorant ones.

>> <snip>
>>
>>>> This Pro-Art rotates 900
>>> Or 8:5 (-:
>>
>> Does it really display as 900 on your system? I ask, because I used
>> the degree sign when I typed the message.
>
> Yes. At least, I didn't amend the quoted text; I think it had been
> amended by the time I got it, rather than my system, which can display
> the ° sign OK. (That's the degree sign, in case it has been amended by
> the time _you_ see it.)

It must have been amended, as your degree sign came through.

>> <snip>
> (I use "[]" to mean the same thing.)
> []

I noticed. LOL

<snip>

>> You can blame the movie people for the widescreen today, IMO.
>
> Yes and no. As I said, widescreen isn't that great even for most movie
> scenes, but (on the whole) we're stuck with it for movies - but its
> introduction in the PC world was due to the belief that movie-viewing
> was going to be a large part of what PCs were going to be used for,
> which I dispute (even now, and certainly at the time of its
> introduction). But any such discussion is pointless as we are where we
> are. (And it's preferable to VVS!)

Long ago, I was reading movie trivia, and discovered there were various
aspect ratios to the new widescreen movies. IIRC, one was 16:9.

> []
>> Teamviewer is installed on all my desktops, for the same use as you.
>> Then when they call, I don't have to go to a particular computer.
>
> Have you had the false diagnosis of commercial use? (When I got it, I
> looked into the pricing: it's such a good utility that I would have
> considered it. But it's so high it really is only for the professional
> user - especially as it's monthly rather than a one-off.)

Teamviewer screwed up, a bug in an update that erroneously mislabeled
the use. I think this was exacerbated if you chose the combo
private/commercial option when you installed it. All I had to do was
send an email to a specific email address, and my stuff was reset.

> []
>>> Most of those still don't seem to have got to grips with the
>>> advantages
>>> of flat screen; they have a space into which the monitor is placed,
>>> still needing a stand and space all around, as if it was still a CRT
>>> monitor with bulk. None of them seem to have it attached to the back
>>> wall, let alone used lateral thinking and attached it as hinged _over_
>>> some of the compartments thus allowing a bigger screen.
>>
>> The newest, and biggest, cabinet is now 18 years old. The other, at
>> least 10 years older.
>
> Ah, so designed in the CRT era; fair enough. I assumed that the ones
> (computer desks) on the page you gave me a link to were mostly new ones,
> and I was surprised they all still showed the monitor as standing in one
> of the boxes, rather than fixed thus wasting less space.

The older one, definitely. Smaller widescreens may have been coming in
with the newer one, but I simply don't remember.

[Rene Lamontagne]

I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very
useful utility to change individual font sizes.

https://www.wintools.info/index.php/advanced-system-font-changer


BTW, my Windows 10 shows
100%
125%
150%
175%.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
> I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very
> useful utility to change individual font sizes.

Are you referring to Advanced System Font Size Changer?

I have that installed on my W10 system, but of course, does nothing for
text you've entered into a word processor, for instance.

I've noticed that sometimes, when you switch to different fonts, the
design of the font will no longer fit into a field that you populate.

Both of these problems are solved with out any tweaking by simply
lowering the screen resolution. But as I mentioned, you do need a
larger monitor, unless you already own one.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
> On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> I don't know if I have mentioned this in this thread, but here is a very
>> useful utility to change individual font sizes.
>
> Are you referring to Advanced System Font Size Changer?
>
> I have that installed on my W10 system, but of course, does nothing for
> text you've entered into a word processor, for instance.
>
> I've noticed that sometimes, when you switch to different fonts, the
> design of the font will no longer fit into a field that you populate.
>
> Both of these problems are solved with out any tweaking by simply
> lowering the screen resolution.  But as I mentioned, you do need a
> larger monitor, unless you already own one.
>

Yes, and yes it has some drawbacks and is only helpful for certain things.
I had a 23" IPS monitor but due to my very poor eyesight I have now
switched to a 27" Asus IPS which helps a lot
I suffer from Albinism, astigmatism and Nystagmus Which gives me about
20/240 with my glasses on I don't know what it is without glasses.
I look at my monitor from a distance of about 6 inches so it involves a
lot of head swiveling, but I manage.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

Could I ask you for a favor?

Would you set your screen resolution to the next lower resolution that
is listed in your screen display options, and let me know if it is any help?

My monitors are 24", and switching from 1920X1200 to 1600X1000 works
well for me, and now I just never notice I'm not at optimum resolution.

"Optimum" is a crappy word to be used the way MS and the manufacturers
use it. "Optimum" is what works best for the user.

[Rene Lamontagne]

1680x1050 is my next lower one, It does make things larger but being
16:10 it leaves a 1 inch black border on each side.
I get best results using 125% or 150% at 1920x1080.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

Hmmmmmm........ OK, let's start over, I need a bit of info...

Is your monitor's native resolution 1920X1200 or 1920X1080?

[Rabid Robot]

My condolences, that can't be the most fun reading experience. Nice to
see that you're managing through it.

[Rene Lamontagne]

It's native res is 1920x1080, it is a 16:9 IPS 27 inch monitor and here
are the available choices.

1920x1280
1680x1050
1600x1200
1400x900
1280x1024
1280x900
1280x720
1152x872
1152x864
1024x768
800x600

Renne

[Rene Lamontagne]

Thanks Robot, I was born that way white hair and all so had to learn to
live with it for 85 years, still managed to do 2 new computer builds in
the last few weeks. :-)

Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

Should read 1920x1080 not 1280.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

I wondered about that, as well as a couple other resolutions in your
list. They don't fit the info I've discovered unless...

And before I can go further, I need the make and model of the monitor if
you don't mind.

[Ken Springer]

Rene is a perfect example of the type of folks I'm trying to find ways
to help them view a computer screen. So, I'm hoping Rene isn't getting
a bit frustrated with the questions I'm pestering him with.

[Rene Lamontagne]

Yeah, some of those resolutions don't seem to belong in this group.
The monitor is an Asus MX279 27 inch IPS unit, Approximately a year old.

Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

Not at all Ken, by the way, in Windows 10 Ease Of access we now have a
means of altering text size with one slider.
Also altering the size and color of the cursor, which is a great help.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

I've seen the slider, and wonder if that doesn't replace the 100%, 125%,
and 150% settings. The slider is on my to do list for checking out.

As for the cursor, that's been around a long time. I always set mine,
and others, or extra large inverted.
>
> Rene

[Rene Lamontagne]

This time the cursor size is also on a slider with infinite size choice,
up to about 1 inch high(that's a little too big) :-) I also use
inverted which makes it easier to find.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

I had to check out my Dell monitor, as it's attached to Windows systems.
The monitor I'm using now, is attached to a Mac Mini. Options for
screen resolution settings are different between operating systems.

For those odd resolutions that don't seem to fit... I looked at my Dell
U2412M resolution options in Windows 7, and I also have some of those
strange sizes. But that monitor can be set to display 3 different
aspect ratios, 16:10, 4:3, and 5:4. The last two do not fill the monitor
screen completely. I don't know why this is, unless because it was
billed as Business Class, there may be some that need those aspect
ratios to be compatible with older hardware and/or software they use.

Using On Screen controls, aka buttons on the monitor, can you set your
monitor to run in other aspect ratios?

The max resolution of your Asus is 1920X1080, and that puzzles me given
the physical size of the monitor. The Asus PB27QV Professional monitor
(27") has a maximum resolution of 2560X1440.

Another puzzler is why the Asus specifications say to use an HDMI to DVI
cable in order to use the DVI-D port. I know there are different DVI
ports, but I'm not up on the individual differences.

So, why the difference in max resolutions for the same physical size?
It's just a guess, but I think the market your monitor is intended for
is for people who want to set further away from their video device, yet
still see the best HDMI image they can. I've noticed this type of
"viewing distance" recommendations for different sized TVs.

Also, I don't understand, is why you would be offered a screen
resolutions that are 16:10 in aspect ration when the monitor is 16:9 is
size. Are you connecting using an HDMI cable? When I was testing this
Mac Mini for out of the box issues, I was noticing HDMI video results
that just were not making sense.

At the moment, if your main source of data to be displayed is streaming,
movies, etcl, I'm not sure HDMI should be the chosen video input. But I
don't have access to enough hardware for a more thorough testing regimen.

1400X900 is a resolution I've not seen. Could that be 1440X900?

[Ken Springer]

Something more for me to play with in W10! LOL

[Rene Lamontagne]

I don't see that option.

>
> The max resolution of your Asus is 1920X1080, and that puzzles me given
> the physical size of the monitor.  The Asus PB27QV Professional monitor
> (27") has a maximum resolution of 2560X1440.

The MX279 was much cheaper at that time so opted for it even with the
lower resolution.

>
> Another puzzler is why the Asus specifications say to use an HDMI to DVI
> cable in order to use the DVI-D port.  I know there are different DVI
> ports, but I'm not up on the individual differences.

I tried the HDMI to DVI cable hookup and the colors were a mile off and
I nearly returned it, but decided to try an HDMI to HDMI cable and then
everything was fine, I have since tried a Displayport to HDMI cable with
the same results as HDMI to HDMI.

>
> So, why the difference in max resolutions for the same physical size?
> It's just a guess, but I think the market your monitor is intended for
> is for people who want to set further away from their video device, yet
> still see the best HDMI image they can.  I've noticed this type of
> "viewing distance" recommendations for different sized TVs.
>
> Also, I don't understand, is why you would be offered a screen
> resolutions that are 16:10 in aspect ration when the monitor is 16:9 is
> size.  Are you connecting using an HDMI cable?  When I was testing this
> Mac Mini for out of the box issues, I was noticing HDMI video results
> that just were not making sense.

No, I don't see any sense in the 16:10 being offered unless I actuality
had a 16:10 hooked up and communicating its size to the PC.

> At the moment, if your main source of data to be displayed is streaming,
> movies, etcl, I'm not sure HDMI should be the chosen video input.  But I
> don't have access to enough hardware for a more thorough testing regimen.

No movies or streaming data, just your regular vanilla email, browsing
the net and Half-life 2 games and mods.

>
> 1400X900 is a resolution I've not seen.  Could that be 1440X900?

Yep, that would be 1440x900, Finger misbehavior. :-)


Rene

[Ken Springer]

OK, I think you told me what connection you are currently using, and
what your options are, with the cables you have in hand.

But, I can't find that info.

I think Asus has the wrong info on their website. If the native
resolution is 16:9, you should not have 1920X1200 in your list. That's
the native resolution of my 24" 16:10 monitor.

Are you currently connecting HDMI to HDMI?

With the cables you have in hand, what are your other connection options?

This whole thing is not "smelling" right, if you follow what I mean.

[Rene Lamontagne]

I am now running HDMI to HDMI

I have Dispklayport to HDMI cable
I have HDMI to VGA cable

Since My new build I am running AMD 5 3400g CPU with Vega 11 video on
CPU which gives me HDMI and Displayport outputs.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

Drat. I was hoping you had something that would take HDMI totally out
of the equation.

Got any friends with something you could borrow?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <gttlpv...@mid.individual.net>, Rene Lamontagne
<rla...@shaw.ca> writes:
[]

>I have HDMI to VGA cable

[]
Although there's a tendency to call anything that goes between two
connectors a "cable" these days (such as "power cable" for laptops),
HDMI to VGA won't be what _I_ would call a "cable" - it'll have to have
some electronics in it. (And consume power, though that might be little
enough to use the supply on the cable.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Beatrix Potter was a bunny boiler.
- Patricia Routledge, on "Today" 2016-1-26

[Rene Lamontagne]

No,All of my friends are now all gone, I built my sons but his too has
only Display-port and HDMI, Everything seems to have swung in that
direction.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

On 9/11/19 8:19 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <gttlpv...@mid.individual.net>, Rene Lamontagne
> <rla...@shaw.ca> writes:
> []
>> I have HDMI to VGA cable
> []
> Although there's a tendency to call anything that goes between two
> connectors a "cable" these days (such as "power cable" for laptops),
> HDMI to VGA won't be what _I_ would call a "cable" - it'll have to have
> some electronics in it. (And consume power, though that might be little
> enough to use the supply on the cable.)

What other word would you use?

Case in point... I can buy a VGA to HDMI adapter, which requires an
HDMI to HDMI cable, or I can buy a VGA to HDMI cable, which does not
require the HDMI to HDMI cable. Both have the electronics. And both
require an audio pigtail to get sound to the display device.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2019-09-11 9:19 p.m., J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <gttlpv...@mid.individual.net>, Rene Lamontagne
> <rla...@shaw.ca> writes:
> []
>> I have HDMI to VGA cable
> []
> Although there's a tendency to call anything that goes between two
> connectors a "cable" these days (such as "power cable" for laptops),
> HDMI to VGA won't be what _I_ would call a "cable" - it'll have to have
> some electronics in it. (And consume power, though that might be little
> enough to use the supply on the cable.)

Possibly call them cable adapters.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

So, no VGA to VGA option either. :-(

Well, I'm at a loss as to any other way to test for true resolution of
the monitor, after my experiences with HDMI.

My hypothesis is, if we remove HDMI from this equation, you'll get a
different list of possible resolutions, with 1200 being the default for
the vertical resolution.

What about an older build with other video output options?

[Rene Lamontagne]

Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and moving
into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll just
leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

You're welcome, Rene. I enjoyed the mental exercise.

[Eric Stevens]

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
wrote:

>On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
><word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>>When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>>it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
monitors? :-)
>
>I think I know what you mean. When I encounter people who think everyone
>else should do things the way they do, I similarly want to cringe.
>
>>I guess they just
>>never think there may be a better way to do things, so they get the job
>>done faster.
>
>Either that, or they're doing things exactly how they want to do them.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

[Paul]

There are passive adapters and active adapters.

A DVI-I to VGA is a passive adapter, because it uses
just wires to pass the VGA signals from DVI-I to the
VGA connector. The HDMI to DVI-D are similarly passive.

The HDMI to VGA on the other hand, is an active adapter.
I'm using one of those right now, on the other computer.
It draws +5V from a pin on HDMI, to run an HDMI to VGA
chip inside the adapter.

This is the year of the adapter. If you need active adapters
because your new video card has no VGA output, pick up an
adapter now, while the supply is good. I have an HDMI to VGA
and a DisplayPort to VGA, as examples.

There is still at least one card which has VGA native,
and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver
support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards
are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is
the year of the adapter).

Paul

[Mark Lloyd]

On 9/11/19 10:55 AM, Ken Springer wrote:

[snip]

> Could I ask you for a favor?
>
> Would you set your screen resolution to the next lower resolution that
> is listed in your screen display options, and let me know if it is any
> help?
>
> My monitors are 24", and switching from 1920X1200 to 1600X1000 works
> well for me, and now I just never notice I'm not at optimum resolution.
>
> "Optimum" is a crappy word to be used the way MS and the manufacturers
> use it.  "Optimum" is what works best for the user.

I have a 14-inch laptop with 1920x1080 resolution, which makes the
letters too small. I set it to 1600x900, which has the same aspect ratio.

--
104 days until the winter celebration (Wed, Dec 25, 2019 12:00:00 AM for
1 day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to
pause and reflect. -- Mark Twain (1835-1910)"

[Jonathan N. Little]

DVI, HDMI, and DisplayPort have the same video signal with the exception
of HDMI includes audio channels and DisplayPort includes ultra-high
definition resolutions. VGA is a different signal and requires
conversion and is a major downgrade. My video card has 3 DisplayPorts
and one HDMI and since I am running dual monitors without DisplayPorts I
went with DisplayPorts to DVI cables. I don't use audio with crappy
monitor speakers. BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080



--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Ken Springer]

On 9/11/19 9:34 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
> On 9/11/19 9:03 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>> On 2019-09-11 9:56 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>> On 9/11/19 8:49 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>> On 2019-09-11 9:02 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>>>> On 9/11/19 7:37 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>>>> On 2019-09-11 8:23 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/11/19 3:10 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2019-09-11 3:58 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/19 2:01 PM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-09-11 2:46 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/19 10:34 AM, Rabid Robot wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-09-11 11:23 a.m., Rene Lamontagne wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2019-09-11 10:09 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/11/19 8:49 AM, Rene Lamontagne wrote:

<snip>

>> Sold both of my older builds on Kijiji, since selling house and moving
>> into an apartment space is at a premium, unused stuff has gotta go.
>> Anyway it all works and seeing it doesn't do any harm I guess I'll just
>> leave it a mystery. Thanks for trying to sort it out.
>
> You're welcome, Rene. I enjoyed the mental exercise.

Having slept on this issue over night, would you want to try something
just for fun?

Try 1440X900, and see what you can do with that.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote:
> There is still at least one card which has VGA native,
> and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver
> support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards
> are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is
> the year of the adapter).

What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics?

[Rene Lamontagne]

OK, that looks not bad but leaves about 3/4 inch black on each side.
Got a post from Mark Loyd a little while ago suggesting 1600x900 which
really works great, fills the screen fully and is 16:9, Wonder why I
didn't see it myself, I guess we just see what we want to see at times. :-)

Rene

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080

This is what is puzzling to me.

If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?

I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
system, the other Mac Mojave.

Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
aspect ratio.

It's quite the conundrum.

[Rene Lamontagne]

On 2019-09-12 8:29 a.m., Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 9/11/19 10:55 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Could I ask you for a favor?
>>
>> Would you set your screen resolution to the next lower resolution that
>> is listed in your screen display options, and let me know if it is any
>> help?
>>
>> My monitors are 24", and switching from 1920X1200 to 1600X1000 works
>> well for me, and now I just never notice I'm not at optimum resolution.
>>
>> "Optimum" is a crappy word to be used the way MS and the manufacturers
>> use it.  "Optimum" is what works best for the user.
> I have a 14-inch laptop with 1920x1080 resolution, which makes the
> letters too small. I set it to 1600x900, which has the same aspect ratio.
>

Thanks Mark, That works great Full edge to edge and the proper ratio,
wonder why I didn't try it before.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

Hmmm... 1600X900 was not in your original list of possible resolutions.

As I just replied to Jonathan Little, your original list of resolutions
as 3 resolutions that are 16:10, which just does not make sense to me if
the monitor is truly 16:9.

Have you tried all the different tweaks shown in Ease of Access with
both resolutions?

[Rene Lamontagne]

To add to the mix I just went and checked my sons System, this really
gets crazy.
He has the same Asus MX279 monitor, But I built his system with an Intel
i7 8700 CPU/GPU with Intel UHD630 graphics hooked up HDMI to HDMI cable
same as mine , Mine has an AMD CPU/GPU with Vega 11 Graphics.
His has additional settings of
1400x1050
1360x768
1366x768
but his shows none of the lower ones below 1280x720 which is his lowest,
So it would seem that the settings are very CPU/GPU dependent.
There, that should help to stir the pot. :-)

Rene

[Ken Springer]

ROTFLMAO!!!

The various combos of hardware has always been in my mind as being a
factor in what you can do when it comes to trying to compensate for
visual issues.

My thought right now is, there will never be a single size fits all
solution to visual issues. It boils down to knowing how to access the
various settings plus what the hardware can do.

That means all solutions are individual. Plus, one hardware system may
work better than another for any individual.

If you were to try to custom build a system for someone, I'm thinking
you need to select the hardware combination that gives you the widest
range of options.

I'd love to help fellow seniors and anyone else set their system up to
work the best for them, but selecting the hardware is way beyond my
abilities. After configuring the visual aspects of the system, now you
have to move on to configuring the UI and such for ease of use.
Customizing the start menu, do you put shortcuts on the taskbar, or the
desktop, and do you simply create keyboard shortcuts.

It's no wonder people get frustrated with their computers, and simply
walk away.

[Rabid Rogue]

On 2019-09-12 10:04 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
> On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote:
>> There is still at least one card which has VGA native,
>> and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver
>> support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards
>> are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is
>> the year of the adapter).
>
> What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics?

The processor. Generally, those generic GPUs like the Intel HD 4600 and
whatever AMD calls the GPU integrated on the AMD A10 family are right
there on the processor itself.


--
Your friendly neighborhood Rabid Rogue

[nospam]

In article <qldo16$rn3$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:


> I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
> system, the other Mac Mojave.
>
> Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
> aspect ratio.

it would be interpolated, and since it's not a hidpi display, it would
not look good. however, it's still possible.

on the mac, in the displays system preference, option-click the scaled
button and it will show many more choices.

for windows:
<https://superuser.com/questions/1209385/create-a-custom-resolution-on-w
indows-10>

> It's quite the conundrum.

not really.

[Paul]

Ken Springer wrote:
> On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080
>
> This is what is puzzling to me.
>
> If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
> screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?
>
> I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
> system, the other Mac Mojave.
>
> Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
> aspect ratio.
>
> It's quite the conundrum.
>

You can do some things with black bars on sides, or top/bottom.

You can scale things (which might look terrible).

Some display devices for example, support 1360x768, 1366x768, 1368x768,
as all three are possible output signals (in some situation), so the
monitor will claim to deal with them. And like a set-top-box, it
messes around with a "conversion" until it fits. Some earlier devices
may have attempted using a scaler to deal with 1366, which might
happen to look bad depending on the native resolution of the monitor.

The limits are "hardware developer creativity" and "looks crappy".
If a solution looks crappy, it might not get offered. Because the
customer might assume the product is defective and send it back.

You'll notice that when Windows 10 doesn't have a display driver,
it outputs 1024x768 using the Basic Display Driver, which doesn't
look that bad, but circles are not circles on a lot of
monitors. Just so you know it isn't doing "native output".
That driver refuses to offer any other choices, even though
strictly speaking, it should be able to offer anything. The value
is one of the early VESA values 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, which
is less than the output resolution required to ruin non-multisync
monitors. That's how it was selected.

The Wikipedia article(s) do seem to list 1440x900 (today), but it wasn't
in any lists "at first". You might have had 1024x768, 1152x864, 1280x1024
and then 1600x1200, completely missing 1440x900 and 1920x1080
(which came later). That's one thing the articles might be missing,
is the history of "which wave" a resolution choice arrived in.
I'm not convinced all the values in the tables have "equal weight".
As at first, some values were "resisted".

In addition, a couple of video cards were missing certain resolutions
because the *driver writer* took it upon himself to prevent the
driver from showing the DVI output on the card, didn't work
properly above 135MHz. One resolution went missing because
of a "math error" and that one was added back in as a bug fix.
Some NVidia cards had trouble making the 165MHz clock rate
and the pads on the chip weren't fast enough. At one time,
current source type 622Mb/sec diff pads were the limit. But gradually
the pads got faster and faster. The 165MHz clock was a 1650Mbit/sec
data rate, which is close to three times the 622 rate of not
that long before it. Today, HDMI is 330MHz at least, so the
outputs go that much faster at the top end. And eventually,
the cable loss and max cable length, cut into the fun. The
higher the frequency, the more "rounded" the bits become
and the eye starts to close. However, when you use a scope
(I've tried this), you can "see a blur on the scope", and
the receiver still manages to extract a signal. Which when
you're looking at it, is pretty amazing. I've had cases
where stuff wasn't a blur... and it still didn't work.
So you count your blessings on clock-with-data interfaces
like that. R,G,B,CLK with CLK at 1/10th rate.

Paul

[Jonathan N. Little]

Ken Springer wrote:
> On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080
>
> This is what is puzzling to me.
>
> If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
> screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?
>
> I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios.  One attached to W10 (1903)
> system, the other Mac Mojave.
>
> Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
> aspect ratio.
>
> It's quite the conundrum.
>

Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card.
One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old
multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best.
They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase
the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and
then in the OS increase font size in GUI

[Rene Lamontagne]

Yes, it can be a confusing experience for people who do not really have
the knowledge required, My son forinstance has no interest in learning
about the inards of computers, If his system gives trouble all I will
hear is "Dad, could you please fix my computer, it is doing or not
doing xxx".
BTW when I did the original resolution list I must have been half asleep.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

I hear this from everyone, for the most part. And that attitude just
hinders their ability to use the computer effectively. Especially in
the workplace.

> BTW when I did the original resolution list I must have been half asleep.

That seems to be my normal state! LOL

[Ken Springer]

My apologies, I should have worded that question differently.

For the motherboard video connection, not a 3rd party card, in general
what's the norm for today? Are they still including VGA there?

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 11:03 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article <qldo16$rn3$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>
>> I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
>> system, the other Mac Mojave.
>>
>> Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
>> aspect ratio.
>
> it would be interpolated, and since it's not a hidpi display, it would
> not look good. however, it's still possible.

I've known about interpolation since before I owned Windows or Mac.

I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.

> on the mac, in the displays system preference, option-click the scaled
> button and it will show many more choices.

Ayup, know that.

> for windows:
> <https://superuser.com/questions/1209385/create-a-custom-resolution-on-w
> indows-10>

One of the posts in that thread gives you a link to a Custom Resolution
Utility, which I'll look into.

A lot of what we are discussing now is OK for me, but certainly not
something I'd recommend to the less knowledgeable user.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 11:33 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
> Ken Springer wrote:
>> On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080
>>
>> This is what is puzzling to me.
>>
>> If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
>> screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?
>>
>> I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios.  One attached to W10 (1903)
>> system, the other Mac Mojave.
>>
>> Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
>> aspect ratio.
>>
>> It's quite the conundrum.
>>
>
> Well I might be a limitation of either your monitor or graphics card.

Or both. <G>

> One thing to note now with flat panel monitors as opposed to old
> multisync CRTs, flat panels have a native resolution that works best.
> They don't really work well at other resolutions. Best way to increase
> the scaling on modern flat panels is to set to the native resolution and
> then in the OS increase font size in GUI

From the technical side, true. And I suspect Rene has tried all of
this, and still found it lacking. So he tried other settings that
worked better...*for* *him*.

And that's a concept some people seemingly cannot grasp. There is no
one size fits all, and something that usually works for some, may not
work well for others.

The goal here is to find something that works for a given individual.
It doesn't matter if it's technically not the best. If you can't read
what is technically the best... Who cares if you use something else?
The goal is to be able to read the screen as best as you can, not the
best the system can be set. :-)

And with what I'm looking for, I may not be working with W10. either.

[Rene Lamontagne]

The 2 new boards I have used in the last month, one is an Asus z390
prime Intel board, The other an Asus b450-f AMD board.
Both have Displaymate and HDMI outputs, No DVI or VGA.

Rene

[Ken Springer]

So, if the person who gets a system with one of those boards made,
already has a really nice monitor but it doesn't have Displayport or
HDMI, that person also is forced into a new monitor.

[Rene Lamontagne]

Or an HDMI or displayport to VGA or DVI cable or adapter and cable.

Rene

[nospam]

In article <qle5fm$vi7$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

> >> I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
> >> system, the other Mac Mojave.
> >>
> >> Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
> >> aspect ratio.
> >
> > it would be interpolated, and since it's not a hidpi display, it would
> > not look good. however, it's still possible.
>
> I've known about interpolation since before I owned Windows or Mac.

nobody said you didn't.

> I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.

actually it doesn't.

what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
tolerance for crap.

> > on the mac, in the displays system preference, option-click the scaled
> > button and it will show many more choices.
>
> Ayup, know that.

then 1440x900 should show up.

> > for windows:
> > <https://superuser.com/questions/1209385/create-a-custom-resolution-on-w
> > indows-10>
>
> One of the posts in that thread gives you a link to a Custom Resolution
> Utility, which I'll look into.

it should show up there too.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 2:19 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <qle5fm$vi7$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

<snip>

>> I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.
>
> actually it doesn't.
>
> what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
> tolerance for crap.

Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it. This seems to
be a perspective you cannot comprehend.

>>> on the mac, in the displays system preference, option-click the scaled
>>> button and it will show many more choices.
>>
>> Ayup, know that.
>
> then 1440x900 should show up.

It should, but it doesn't.

<snip>

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 11:08 AM, Paul wrote:
> Ken Springer wrote:
>> On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

<snip>

> The Wikipedia article(s) do seem to list 1440x900 (today), but it wasn't
> in any lists "at first".

FWIW, I have an HP W1907 in the back room, native resolution is
1440X900. I believe I have a laptop also, but didn't dig them all out
to check.

Seems like a chicken or the egg question, which came first, monitors
with that resolution, or graphics cards...


<snip>

[nospam]

In article <qleg3b$8vh$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

> >> I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.
> >
> > actually it doesn't.
> >
> > what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
> > tolerance for crap.
>
> Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it.

of course they matter and nobody said anything about setting it to
where it can't be read, which isn't possible with a normal lcd anyway.

a hi-dpi display set to its native resolution would result in
everything being very tiny and hard to read, but that isn't an option
that's normally available.

> This seems to
> be a perspective you cannot comprehend.

it's you who doesn't comprehend.

[Ken Springer]

On 9/12/19 5:04 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article <qleg3b$8vh$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
> <word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>
>>>> I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.
>>>
>>> actually it doesn't.
>>>
>>> what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
>>> tolerance for crap.
>>
>> Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it.
>
> of course they matter and nobody said anything about setting it to
> where it can't be read, which isn't possible with a normal lcd anyway.

That's not what I said. I said the best resolution may not be readable
for some people. This is a problem for me with Windows 7. It simply
doesn't have the settings available that Windows 10 has.

> a hi-dpi display set to its native resolution would result in
> everything being very tiny and hard to read, but that isn't an option
> that's normally available.
>
>> This seems to
>> be a perspective you cannot comprehend.
>
> it's you who doesn't comprehend.

You are just clueless what it's like if you have a vision issue. I feel
sorry you can't have more sympathy for those individuals.

[nospam]

In article <qlejq7$144$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:

> >>>> I've learned over the years that "looking good" varies by the user.
> >>>
> >>> actually it doesn't.
> >>>
> >>> what varies by the user is their desire for the best quality and
> >>> tolerance for crap.
> >>
> >> Neither of those parameters matter if you can't read it.
> >
> > of course they matter and nobody said anything about setting it to
> > where it can't be read, which isn't possible with a normal lcd anyway.
>
> That's not what I said. I said the best resolution may not be readable
> for some people.

nope, you said 'looking good', not that it wasn't readable. those are
two very different concepts.

> This is a problem for me with Windows 7. It simply
> doesn't have the settings available that Windows 10 has.

there's no reason to use win7 anymore, so there's no issue.

[Paul]

Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
and get the EDID table from the monitor ?

https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm

Paul

[Ken Springer]

Something I just don't have the time to learn, right now.

[Paul]

Install, run, look at the table.

Won't take long at all.

Paul

[Rabid Rogue]

On 2019-09-12 2:44 p.m., Ken Springer wrote:
> On 9/12/19 10:57 AM, Rabid Rogue wrote:
>> On 2019-09-12 10:04 a.m., Ken Springer wrote:
>>> On 9/12/19 1:39 AM, Paul wrote:
>>>> There is still at least one card which has VGA native,
>>>> and that's the GT 710. It might even still have driver
>>>> support (a miracle). For the most part, newer cards
>>>> are missing VGA on the faceplate (which is why it is
>>>> the year of the adapter).
>>>
>>> What do you find on a motherboard itself for integrated graphics?
>>
>> The processor. Generally, those generic GPUs like the Intel HD 4600 and
>> whatever AMD calls the GPU integrated on the AMD A10 family are right
>> there on the processor itself.
>
> My apologies, I should have worded that question differently.
>
> For the motherboard video connection, not a 3rd party card, in general
> what's the norm for today?  Are they still including VGA there?

According to the ASUS motherboard site, it seems that they include HDMI
and DisplayPort connectors. VGA works through the HDMI through an
adapter it seems.

[Ken Springer]

Just because I look at the table, doesn't mean I'll understand it! LOL

I will download it, though.

[Ken Springer]

Granted my options for testing HDMI ports, with what I've seen so far,
I'm not sure I can trust it to be what I'm looking for.

[Rene Lamontagne]

You're right Paul I installed it and glomed all the monitor info I
wanted in about 10 minutes.

Thanks for the tip, Rene

[Paul]

I checked in my archive, and this one shows a little more info.

https://s18.postimg.cc/48vzohbmx/moninfo.gif

And that's the monitor telling us what it supports, near the bottom.
I should have scrolled down and shown all of them.

Paul

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <hhijnetn8ptq1ltmc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
<eric.s...@sum.co.nz> writes:
>On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
>><word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>>>it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.
>
>How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
>monitors? :-)

That depends how you use it! For example, if you open a word-processor,
is it maximised across both monitors? (-:
[]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

And on the question of authorship, I subscribe to the view that the plays were
not in fact written by Shakespeare but by someone of the same name.
- Hugh Bonneville (RT 2014/10/11-17)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <qlcbpe$fco$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer
<word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
>On 9/11/19 8:19 PM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> In message <gttlpv...@mid.individual.net>, Rene Lamontagne
>> <rla...@shaw.ca> writes:
>> []
>>> I have HDMI to VGA cable
>> []
>> Although there's a tendency to call anything that goes between two
>> connectors a "cable" these days (such as "power cable" for laptops),
>> HDMI to VGA won't be what _I_ would call a "cable" - it'll have to have
>> some electronics in it. (And consume power, though that might be little
>> enough to use the supply on the cable.)
>
>What other word would you use?
>
>Case in point... I can buy a VGA to HDMI adapter, which requires an
>HDMI to HDMI cable, or I can buy a VGA to HDMI cable, which does not
>require the HDMI to HDMI cable. Both have the electronics. And both
>require an audio pigtail to get sound to the display device.
>
I don't mind "adapter", and I'm happy to accept the concept of an
adapter with captive cable(s). It's just that, to me, "cable" is
synonymous (in this context) with "lead" (or US "cord"), i. e. something
that consists of just copper, insulation, and connectors. It's more than
just pedantry: I accept (though it makes me cringe) "power cable" for a
laptop, as the brick in the middle is fairly obvious; however, for
things like SVGA to or from HDMI, or USB to or from serial/parallel, the
electronics are often small enough to be hidden inside one of the
connectors, especially if it's made just a bit larger than usual. OK,
for many users it may not matter that they don't know it isn't just a
"cable", but I think there are cases where it is necessary to know.

[Andy Burns]

Ken Springer wrote:

> When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
> it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.

I find they generally react badly when you try to point out the error of
their ways ...

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <qldo16$rn3$1...@news.albasani.net>, Ken Springer

<word...@greeleynet.com> writes:
>On 9/12/19 7:57 AM, Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>> BTW 16:9 aspect is not 1920X1200 but 1920X1080
>
>This is what is puzzling to me.
>
>If the monitor's aspect ratio is 16:9, why does Rene's list of optional
>screen resolutions have 3 resolutions that are 16:10 aspect ratios?
>
>I have 2 monitors with 16:10 aspect ratios. One attached to W10 (1903)
>system, the other Mac Mojave.
>
>Neither system offers me a 1440X900 option, even though that is a 16:10
>aspect ratio.
>
>It's quite the conundrum.
>

Maybe, with the native resolution of the monitors in question, that one
gives a blurring result that is _particularly_ obnoxious (maybe even to
VH folk) - _very_ visible blobs, or something?

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <qlelee$f3h$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
writes:
[]

>Why not use MonInfo, select "Real Time" sampling as in the picture,
>and get the EDID table from the monitor ?
>
>https://www.entechtaiwan.com/util/moninfo.shtm
>
> Paul

Just for interest: that page is now headed "Monitor Asset Manager 2.9",
though it's the same utility.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

# 10^-12 boos = 1 picoboo # 2*10^3 mockingbirds = 2 kilo mockingbird
# 10^21 piccolos = 1 gigolo # 10^12 microphones = 1 megaphone
# 10**9 questions = 1 gigawhat

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <gu12c3...@mid.individual.net>, Andy Burns

If you point it out as an error, yes.

[Eric Stevens]

On Fri, 13 Sep 2019 09:18:53 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@255soft.uk> wrote:

>In message <hhijnetn8ptq1ltmc...@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens
><eric.s...@sum.co.nz> writes:
>>On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 23:13:33 -0500, Char Jackson <no...@none.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 21:01:13 -0600, Ken Springer
>>><word...@greeleynet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>When I see people with a decent sized widescreen monitor, and they use
>>>>it with windows maximised, I just want to cringe.
>>
>>How then would you react to me with Windows spread over *two* 25" 3K
>>monitors? :-)
>
>That depends how you use it! For example, if you open a word-processor,
>is it maximised across both monitors? (-:
>[]

I justify the use of two screens mainly for image processing:
PhotoShop and Light Room. Image on one screen and all the little
twiddly windows and dockers on another.

But having got two screens it is great (for example) to have Firefox
on one and Agent on the other. Again, a word processor on one and a
spread sheet on another with (searfch) Everything and several examples
of Windows Explorer tucked in a corner.

--


Eric Stevens

There are two classes of people. Those who divide people into
two classes and those who don't. I belong to the second class.

[Ken Springer]

You know, computer users are always using the wrong terms, and I do
complain about that occasionally. So I think I'll go your route, and
call them adapters.