screen resolution

[chris]

On Mon, 2011-04-11 at 16:19 +1000, Basil Chupin wrote:
> On 10/04/2011 09:07, chris wrote:
> > On Sun, 2011-03-27 at 17:26 +1100, Basil Chupin wrote:
> >> On 27/03/2011 14:29, chris wrote:
> >>> Hi,
> >>> I am running an asus p4 with an nvidia graphics card, and 2 gig of ram.
> > <snip>
> >> But you don't say what resolution you get with XP :-) .
> >>
> > 1600x1200
> >> I have 3 ViewSonic lcds and each working perfectly at its native
> >> resolution. Which ViewSonic model do you have?
> >>
> > Viewsonic vx 2235 native resolution 1600x1200
> 
> 
> Sorry for taking some time to respond but I have been fooling around 
> with testing a new distro/DEs.
> 
> 
> Now, most sorry to say this but if the above details ARE correct then 
> the native resolution of the monitor you have is 1680x1050.
> 

Yes, for some reason I typed 1600 x1200.  Old age and pain killers!

> A resolution of 1600x1200 gives you are ration of 1:1.33333 - which is 
> the standard 4:3 monitor of old.
> 
> You have a widescreen monitor and with a resolution of 1680x1050 - 
> exactly as my wife's set-up - you get the ratio of 1:1.6 (which is 
> 16:10). (My monitor is a 24" ViewSonic with a resolution of 1920x1080p - 
> giving me a 16:9 ratio which is the standard/typical digital HD ration 
> (1:1.7)
> 
> If you doubt me, look here:
> 
> http://www.graphic-design.com/DTG/Reviews/viewsonic.html
> 
> So, please check that you have provided the correct model description of 
> your ViewSonic.
> 
> 
> 

Yes, the model is correct.  What I have discovered since, is that for
some reason the edid information is not being read.  
Question is why.

> Having said all this, I asked you about. and you responded, that you are 
> using the Geforce FX5200 nVidia card.
> 
> I asked you whether the card was connected to the monitor with an 
> analogue or a digital cable - your answer was that it was analogue. 
> (Question: does *your* FX5200 have a DVI connector or only the analogue 
> outlet?)
> 

Only the analogue.

> While this will not provide the answer, I could never get this card to 
> work correctly on wife's system using a DVI cable. The only way the 
> FX5200 would produce anything viewable and according to the native 
> resolution was to use an analogue cable. I have NO idea why this was the 
> case....but there it is: FX5200 + DVI cable = no-go; FX5200 + analogue 
> 
> -- 
> Great Man reaches complete understanding of the main issues; Petty Man
reaches complete understanding of the minute details."
> 
>                                               Confucius
> 
> 
> 

> cable = OK. And yet at least one person used the FX5200 card+DVI cable 
> to get perfect results. Go figure :-( .
> 

Having trouble standing and you want me to figure?  :-)

> Please check and confirm that the details you have provided are correct. 
> You may be trying to force the monitor to do things which you shouldn't 
> -- and as Windows "wouldn't know it's arse from a hole in the ground" is 
> probably why it gives you a resolution which the monitor really cannot 
> support :-) (and therefore possibly damaging your monitor). [In other 
> words, the driver in Windows which was installed is not the right one 
> for the monitor.......]
> 
> BC

Yes the driver is the correct one for windows, and the res is correct at
1680 x 1050 under windows.

So, after a couple of reinstalls using both Ubuntu 10.04,  and mint
10.4, am no further ahead.

Any ideas greatly  appreciated.

The base install, with either programe, with out the nvidia 173 driver
gives a res of 1064x 640.  Yuk!

With the 173 driver it defaults to 800x600!
Go figure

My wifes machine with 8.04 using xorg. no issues 1680x 1050.

Hair pulling out time
cheers Chris