oops, sorry Rance, didn't pay proper attention when answering your question above.
the maximum resolution which Windows 2000 claims to support is 1600x1200. however the "Displays" menu in advanced ATI options tab says it can support only 1400x1050.
Rance, in 1400x1050 I was able to see 11 vertical icons and 19 or 20 horizontal (there's no align to grid function in Windows 2000 as it's implemented in WinXP).
When I tried to use 1600x1200 it gave me actual 1400x1050 panning desktop.
OK, but are you actually able to achieve a full screen resolution of 1400x1050 without scrolling? If it appears that you can, let's make sure this is the actual resolution being used. Right click on an empty space on your Windows desktop and then select "Arrange icons by.." then select "Arrange to grid". Start placing icons down the left side of your screen until there is no room to place more. If you don't have enough icons to place, right click on the Desktop and select "New Folder" until you have enough. How many icons are you able to place top to bottom?
OK. I think it's safe to say that your system does in fact have an SXGA+ LCD. Way back on May 9th I asked you to uncheck a box labeled "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display". You never actually stated whether or not you did this. Is this box currently unchecked under Windows XP? Also under the monitor tab, does it state "Default Monitor"?
Did you happen to have an external monitor attached to the system while you were installing Windows XP?
Message Edited by DELL-Rance on 05-21-2003 10:14 AM
yes, Rance, I have this checkbox checked. I uncheck it so it lets me to choose higher refresh rate than 60Hz. It doesn't make any difference on LCD screen though.
I didn't have external monitor attached to my laptop during installation. I've been working with extgernal monitor couple of days but then I sticked to only LCD one.
The fact that this was checked could be the cause of the problem. Unchecking "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display" should allow you to increase the resolution beyond 1024x768.
Rance, I will retain from comments. But no, it doesn't change a thing in "panning desktop" "feature".
I realize that the support of the public forum may not have SLA or enough attention, at least in comparison to normal support channels (hotline -> second level -> third level -> development).
Still, could you ask development directly, why there's a difference between WinXP and Win2000 drivers?
d3sp
470 Posts
0
May 20th, 2003 05:00
Rance:
800x600 and 1024x768
I tried to switch monitor type from "Default monitor" to "Flat screen 1280x1024" but it didn't do any good for getting higher resolution.
Rance485
2 Intern
•
298 Posts
0
May 20th, 2003 15:00
d3sp:
I thought you said you were able to achieve a resolution higher than 1024x768 without scrolling using Windows 2000.
d3sp
470 Posts
0
May 21st, 2003 07:00
oops, sorry Rance, didn't pay proper attention when answering your question above.
the maximum resolution which Windows 2000 claims to support is 1600x1200. however the "Displays" menu in advanced ATI options tab says it can support only 1400x1050.
sorry for confusion
d3sp
470 Posts
0
May 21st, 2003 12:00
Rance, in 1400x1050 I was able to see 11 vertical icons and 19 or 20 horizontal (there's no align to grid function in Windows 2000 as it's implemented in WinXP).
When I tried to use 1600x1200 it gave me actual 1400x1050 panning desktop.
Rance485
2 Intern
•
298 Posts
0
May 21st, 2003 12:00
d3sp:
OK, but are you actually able to achieve a full screen resolution of 1400x1050 without scrolling? If it appears that you can, let's make sure this is the actual resolution being used. Right click on an empty space on your Windows desktop and then select "Arrange icons by.." then select "Arrange to grid". Start placing icons down the left side of your screen until there is no room to place more. If you don't have enough icons to place, right click on the Desktop and select "New Folder" until you have enough. How many icons are you able to place top to bottom?
Rance485
2 Intern
•
298 Posts
0
May 21st, 2003 14:00
d3sp:
OK. I think it's safe to say that your system does in fact have an SXGA+ LCD. Way back on May 9th I asked you to uncheck a box labeled "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display". You never actually stated whether or not you did this. Is this box currently unchecked under Windows XP? Also under the monitor tab, does it state "Default Monitor"?
Did you happen to have an external monitor attached to the system while you were installing Windows XP?
Message Edited by DELL-Rance on 05-21-2003 10:14 AM
d3sp
470 Posts
0
May 23rd, 2003 09:00
yes, Rance, I have this checkbox checked. I uncheck it so it lets me to choose higher refresh rate than 60Hz. It doesn't make any difference on LCD screen though.
I didn't have external monitor attached to my laptop during installation. I've been working with extgernal monitor couple of days but then I sticked to only LCD one.
Under Monitor Tab it says Default monitor twice.
Rance485
2 Intern
•
298 Posts
0
May 23rd, 2003 13:00
d3sp:
The fact that this was checked could be the cause of the problem. Unchecking "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display" should allow you to increase the resolution beyond 1024x768.
d3sp
470 Posts
0
May 26th, 2003 10:00
Rance, I will retain from comments. But no, it doesn't change a thing in "panning desktop" "feature".
I realize that the support of the public forum may not have SLA or enough attention, at least in comparison to normal support channels (hotline -> second level -> third level -> development).
Still, could you ask development directly, why there's a difference between WinXP and Win2000 drivers?
Thanks in advance, Rance.
Rosbief
1 Message
0
August 5th, 2003 08:00
I would really like to know this.
Because I want to deal with this problem.
d3sp
470 Posts
0
April 26th, 2004 13:00