my small icons are corrupted - how do I get them back?
poachedeggs
some of my icons are scrambled - e.g. Media player and the one in
Network and dial-up connection address bar are just a square of
indistinct dotted colours. I might be mistaken, but this happened
after a crash when Media Player was running while I was typing
something in Word; but I also run CCleaner every few days and maybe it
trashed something in the registry that it shouldn't have? How do I
get the icons back? It seems pointed that it's just the small icons,
whether folders' contents are viewed as a list or as details or small
icons.
Also the smooth screen fonts function in display properties has never
worked, at least I don't see it do anything on this Windows 2000
Compaq like it did with an XP laptop I had - as I type, the text is
pixellated-looking. Any ideas?
Thanks.
Java Jive
<poach...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> In folder menus if I'm viewing anything but large icons and thumbnails
> some of my icons are scrambled
Two possible remedies:
1) If you have TweakUI installed, choose Start, Settings, Control
Panel, TweakUI, Repair, Rebuild Icons
2) Delete the file %SystemRoot%/ShellIconCache (for W2k as I presume,
as you're posting here - it has another name which escapes me in XP).
You may have to reboot to see the result.
> Also the smooth screen fonts function in display properties has never
> worked, at least I don't see it do anything on this Windows 2000
> Compaq like it did with an XP laptop I had - as I type, the text is
> pixellated-looking. Any ideas?
Check that you are using a resolution with the correct 4:3 aspect
ratio ...
1027 x 768, 1152 x 864, 1280 x 960
... should all be fine.
If that's not the problem, check that you are using the correct screen
refresh rate for your monitor. While in theory refresh rates
shouldn't matter for an LCD monitor, they can often make a difference.
For example, Linux distros seem to be preferentially set up to use75Hz
at 1024x768, and some monitors work fine with that, but others will
only just about display a picture of sorts - it may not fill the
screen, be displaced to one side, and/or just look terrible.
Personally, I have always found 70Hz to work best at that resolution.
HTHs
Java Jive
1024 x 768
poachedeggs
The non-smoothed fonts seem according to various googling to be
suffering from the nVidia driver (for TNT2), though I have the latest
installed. Or this in tandem with the fact that I'm using an LCD
monitor. The smoothing is doing _something_, judging by the test of
trying 72 point Ariel with and without smooth fonts checked. But
normal size fonts in OpenOffice etc and websites are dotty-looking.
Any further ideas are appreciated. Although it's not earth-
shatteringly important, it's easier on the eye to have smooth fonts.
I did consider rolling back the display driver, but was loathe to do
that as it took a few days to get the display looking as good as it
does and I don't know if I can reverse the rollback. It was a bit of
a hassle to install the driver and pictures were poor before the
latest driver was installed.
Yes, I have 1024 x 768 all set correctly and have tried 3 different
refresh rates. I don't have access to a CRT monitor to check if the
LCD monitor's the problem.
Thanks.
> > ... should all be fine.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Java Jive
<poach...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> The icons problem is sorted, thanks for that.
>
> The non-smoothed fonts seem according to various googling to be
> suffering from the nVidia driver (for TNT2), though I have the latest
> installed.
I'm using an nVidia card, though quite an old model now, and fonts
look fine on my PC; smoothing is selected, but I don't notice much
difference from changing it.
> Or this in tandem with the fact that I'm using an LCD
> monitor.
Personally, I would discount that. I've never had any trouble with an
LCD monitor that wasn't also present on a CRT.
As you have done, the main thing is to choose a 4:3 aspect ratio,
otherwise fonts look terrible on both. I suspect that when LCDs first
came in, people tried other aspect ratios which they perhaps they
hadn't tried, or forgot that they'd tried long before and discarded,
on CRTs, saw that they looked terrible, and blamed the technology
rather than the aspect ratio.
There are some who claim that any resolution, even a 4:3 one, that is
not the 'native', full resolution of the screen looks worse than the
full resolution, but I have seen no evidence of this. The 'native'
resolution of mine is 1280x1024, not 4:3, and although small, it's not
too bad. 1280x960 won't display, 1152x864 does and looks fine, though
I use 1024x768 as my eyes at 50+, though still pretty good, are not
what they were at 20+, and I sit with my eyes 1.2m away from the
screen.
FTR mine's a Viewsonic VG712s, and, although this is a replacement
under warranty from when the original died, the replacement has been
good, and I certainly have never had complaints about the picture. I
wouldn't go back to a CRT if you paid me.
> The smoothing is doing _something_, judging by the test of
> trying 72 point Ariel with and without smooth fonts checked. But
> normal size fonts in OpenOffice etc and websites are dotty-looking.
> Any further ideas are appreciated. Although it's not earth-
> shatteringly important, it's easier on the eye to have smooth fonts.
Other than trying the 'native' display resolution, which I suggest on
the claims of others rather than my own expectations, I'm afraid I
have none further.
> I did consider rolling back the display driver, but was loathe to do
> that as it took a few days to get the display looking as good as it
> does and I don't know if I can reverse the rollback. It was a bit of
> a hassle to install the driver and pictures were poor before the
> latest driver was installed.
You could try backing up the image using imaging software first, then
if it doesn't work out, you could simply re-image. Of course this
requires imaging software, spare disk space on another PC, and such
connectivity between the two as will let the imaging software run. I
have all of this already set up, but you may not be so advantageously
placed.