Graphics/monitor problem.

[immoderate]

My old CRT monitor took a dump last week. As I am on austerity budget right now, a friend lent me a spare Sceptre flat screen to use. It looks good at 1600 x 1200 resolution, but it's native res is 1680 x 1050, which is not available.

I have an Intel 82865G Graphics controller, found a driver update, that didn't help. I found the drivers for the X20WG-Naga monitor and installed them. That didn't help.

Any ideas about what to try next? I can live with it as is, but I'd like the circles I draw to appear circular, not elliptical, on the screen.

Thanks to any and all.


--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

1. Graphics/monitor problem.

What OS are you using?

[immoderate]

2. Win XP (with all the upgrades.)

--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

3. You could try...

...installing the monitor driver:
< ftp://ftp.sceptre.com/pub/monlcd/sceptre.zip >

(sorry ftp urls aren't linked, you'll need to copy and paste)

[immoderate]

4. Yes. I already did that.

I also sent an email to Sceptre. No reply so far.


--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

6. Right click an empty area of the desktop...

...select "properties".

Goto the "settings" tab. Click the "advanced" button.
Goto the "adapter" tab. Click the "list all modes..." button.

Check the list for the desired resolution then 'okay' back out.

eta: I forgot to mention, make sure both ends of the monitor cable are fully inserted and tighten the screws.

[immoderate]

8. Tried all those things. But thanks.

I'm waiting for answers from the manufacturers.


--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

9. How many monitors show in the device manager? n/t

[immoderate]

12. Just the X20WG Naga

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. What model is graphics Sceptre monitor? n/t

[immoderate]

11. It's an X20WG NagaII

The driver package has X20G Naga2 - That only goes 1280.

And there's a X20WG Naga driver. That has lots of high resolutions but no 1680 x 1050. I'm pretty sure that's the driver.


--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

14. Try these instructions...

< ftp://ftp.sceptre.com/pub/Manuals/LCD/X20WG-NAGA2.pdf >

See page 11.

[immoderate]

16. It just tells you how to select resolutions that are listed.

The one I need isn't listed. That's the problem.

--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

18. Did you try...

...the monitor internal auto-adjust followed by a PC reboot?
If that doesn't work, try shutting down and disconnecting the monitor before the internal auto-adjust then restart.

You should also check to see if any pins at either end of the cable are damaged, bent or broken. There should be 15.

BTW, what was the resolution set to before the monitor switch?

[Make7]

13. Does the Intel graphics driver's control panel give you more resolutions?

Have you been using the XP Display Properties control panel? If so, try the Intel control panel (press the Ctrl+Alt+F12 keys to bring it up (hopefully) - otherwise it should be in the XP Control Panel folder).

If the refresh rate isn't 60Hz, try setting it to that to see if more resolutions become available. Are there any resolutions that might look okay even though they aren't the native resolution (e.g. 1440x900, 1368x768, 1280x768, 1280x720), or is every resolution listed pretty much a 4x3 aspect ratio (e.g. 1600x1200, 1280x1024, 1024x768, 800x600)?

Does the info for your monitor show up in the Intel control panel, or does it look like default generic settings?


The Intel control panel should look similar to one of the following:

[immoderate]

15. It looks great at 1600x1200

It's just the circles are ellipses.

My panel looks very much like the lower one. It's missing the "Aspect Ratio Options" button.

--imm

[Make7]

17. There may be a problem with the EDID information.

Either it isn't being read by your computer, or the data is bad/incomplete.

Is there anywhere in the Intel control panel where it identifies your monitor? If it doesn't know what is connected, it won't give you the proper resolutions as options. I'm not familiar with the Intel control panel, so I don't know where that information would be (if it is even there at all).

There's probably a less complicated way to do this, but since I don't know where the information is on your system, you could try the following...

[hr]
If you're comfortable starting and navigating the Registry Editor, go to the following key:

    [font color="#000099"]HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Enum\DISPLAY[/font]

There should be a subkey in there that starts with SPT. If you continue to expand subkeys until you get to the 'Device Parameters' key, there should be a value called 'EDID'. If you click on it to highlight it and then select 'Display Binary Data' from the 'View' menu of Registry Editor, you should get a dialog box with data that starts with:

    [font color="#000099"]00 ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 - 15 8f .. .. .. .. .. ..[/font]

If you don't see any EDID information for that monitor, you may have a bad connection preventing your computer from reading the data from the monitor. This is a longshot but if you have another VGA cable, try using it and rebooting your computer after installing to see if that will transfer the EDID data properly.

The EDID tells the computer what resolutions the monitor is compatible with, so you might not even get the option of those resolutions if the data is not being properly read. We could see what the data tells us if you want to go to the effort of typing out (or doing a few sceen caps of) the EDID and posting it. Although if there is some problem with the data, fixing it won't be easy - but at least we might be able to determine where the problem is (or isn't).

Plug and Play is great when it works....

[immoderate]

19. I found the EDID. It's a long number.

You think you can figure it out? I've already got the graphics and the monitor people telling me to update each others drivers.

It will take some time to get the data. You can't select and copy it, or can you? Otherwise I'get it up tomorrow.

Is it possible, as this is an old unsupported chip set, that this is virtually "hard wired" for a fixed set of resolutions?
[hr]

On edit: The number is this:

00 ff ff ff ff ff ff 00 4e 14 94 20 bc 08 00 00 34 11 03 6c 2b 1b 78 ea c5 c6 e3 57 4a 9c 23 12 4f 54 bf ef 80 71 40 81 40 95 00 b3 00 81 cf 81 cf 81 4f b3 0f 7c 2e 90 a0 60 1a 1e 40 30 20 36...

You know what it means?


--imm

[Make7]

20. I don't think it's possible to copy and paste data from the registry.

Usually the actual EDID data is 128 bytes long, the second half of the 256 byte block of data in your registry is probably all zeros.

From the 64 bytes that you posted, we know that the Manufacturer code is SPT, (which is Sceptre's code), the unit was manufactured in 2007, and it can do the following standard resolutions:

720x400 @ 70Hz
720x400 @ 88Hz
640x480 @ 60Hz
640x480 @ 72Hz
640x480 @ 75Hz
800x600 @ 56Hz
800x600 @ 60Hz
800x600 @ 72Hz

... then just when things get interesting, we need the second half of the data.

[hr]
The data format is pretty well spelled out here. I'm using a program from Extron that interprets it for me (if you're interested I can probably find the link so you can download it yourself - it's called EDID Manager, if you want to hunt it down). You can look at EDID blocks from the registry right from the program, then save a report with the data and copy and paste it.

I think the main thing that we know is that EDID information from the monitor did get transferred to your computer. What's odd is that your display card doesn't seem to be accessing all of the data.

I thought the whole point to having EDID was to make it so that the monitor would tell the graphics card what resolution it wanted to see and you would just need to select it from the available options in the control panel. Although that probably only works with standard resolutions, the native timing of this particular monitor seems to be kind of an oddball resolution. I would think your video card should be able to do 1368x768 or 1280x720, but I don't know if those are in the EDID list of supported resolutions.

[immoderate]

21. It works OK at 1600x1200.

Last edited Tue Apr 10, 2012, 11:46 AM - Edit history (1)

I ran the Intel Diagnostics report. It came out with this:

* Devices Connected to the Graphics Accelerator *


Active Monitors: 1


* Monitor *

Monitor Name: SCEPTRE X20WG-Naga
Display Type: Analog
Gamma Value: 3.33
DDC2 Protocol: Supported
Maximum Image Size: Horizontal: 10.6 inches
Vertical: 47.2 inches
Monitor Supported Modes:
248 by 198 (61 Hz)
248 by 198 (111 Hz)
368 by 276 (120 Hz)
368 by 294 (61 Hz)
416 by 798 (139 Hz)
640 by 480 (60 Hz)
640 by 480 (72 Hz)
640 by 480 (75 Hz)
720 by 400 (70 Hz)
720 by 400 (88 Hz)
760 by 608 (61 Hz)
760 by 608 (81 Hz)
800 by 600 (56 Hz)
800 by 600 (60 Hz)
800 by 600 (72 Hz)
880 by 704 (111 Hz)
1904 by 1523 (61 Hz)
Display Power Management Support:
Standby Mode: Supported
Suspend Mode: Supported
Active Off Mode: Not Supported

The video card offers some others like 1280x768 and some higher than the monitor can display.

Is the EDID Manager free? Is there a hazard connected with using it?

Thanks for your help!



--imm

[Make7]

22. That Intel diagnostics info looks like it is data from the EDID.

There are a couple of weird things about the first half of the EDID info (the raw data) that you posted, but before I get to that let me offer what is probably the easiest solution - if you have the option of using 1280x768 as a resolution (or better yet 1440x900), why not try that to see how it works? The aspect ratio is 16:10, the same ratio as the native 1680x1050, so circles should look like circles. Do you absolutely need the higher resolution? What resolution were you running on your old CRT?

Back to the weirdness in the EDID info, I didn't mention it because I only had half of the data and thought one of us might have made a typo so I thought the numbers that didn't make sense were probably just mistakes. However, looking at what you just posted confirms some of the weird data I saw last night. My program gives the max width and height as 27cm and 120cm (same as the Intel diagnostics info), which is strange because those sizes should pretty much correspond with the aspect ratio and physical size of the display device.

What is more troubling though is that (based on the raw data you previously posted) the EDID version/revision numbering is way off. Your monitor comes up with a version number of 3 and revision 108. As far as I know, there is no version above 1 and the revisions are only up to 4. Therefore I believe there are actually some errors within the EDID information. Solving it is probably more trouble than it is worth (especially if you are able to use 1280x768 or 1440x900 already). If you are interested, we can look into a solution but it may be a long journey for little to no gain.

The Extron EDID Manager software is free. (Link - it's at the top of the list.) It does ask for your name/company info in order to download, but I doubt if it checks to verify you are in their database before letting you get the program (although if you enter a real email address, you will probably get "newsletters" from them periodically - which should be easy to opt out of).

There is little to no possibility of harm using that program, it can only load data from the registry or a previously saved data file - it can't overwrite anything in the registry or overwrite EDID information in any connected display devices. It is basically just a program to interpret the raw data into human readable form - it is a troubleshooting tool to find possible EDID problems/incompatibilities. It will also allow you to save EDID information to a file which can be shared with manufacturers to let them see issues. If you do get the software, please use the "Save EDID Report" option and copy at least the raw data here so I can see it too - I'm curious to see the rest of the timing data for that monitor.

[immoderate]

23. Those resolutions are not offered either.

But I found a couple of interesting things in the meantime. One is a page with instructions on how to write your own driver. Very interesting, though I'm not sure it will help. It's here:
http://ryosa.com/intel-widescreen-drivers/

Another is a utility I found "Monitor Asset Manager." It probably does similar things to the one you mentioned. It gave me this, and more.

Monitor
Manufacturer............. Sceptre
Plug and Play ID......... SPT2094
Serial number............ 2236
Manufacture date......... 2007, ISO week 52
Filter driver............ None
-------------------------
EDID revision............ 3.108
Input signal type........ Analog 0.714,0.286 (1.0V p-p)
Sync input support....... Separate, Sync-on-green (w. pulse)
Display type............. Monochrome/grayscale
Screen size.............. 270 x 1200 mm (48.4 in)
Power management......... Standby, Suspend
Extension blocs.......... 30
-------------------------
DDC/CI................... Supported
MCCS revison............. 2.0
Display technology....... TFT
Controller............... RealTek 0x2589
Firmware revision........ 2.0
Active power on time..... Not supported
Power consumption........ Not supported
Current frequency........ 75.50kHz, 60.20Hz

Color characteristics
Default color space...... sRGB
Display gamma............ 3.34
Red chromaticity......... Rx 0.343 - Ry 0.289
Green chromaticity....... Gx 0.610 - Gy 0.139
Blue chromaticity........ Bx 0.072 - By 0.311
White point (default).... Wx 0.328 - Wy 0.749
Additional descriptors... None

Timing characteristics
Range limits............. Not available
GTF standard............. Supported
Additional descriptors... None
Preferred timing......... No
Detailed timing #1....... 416x798p at 139Hz
Modeline............... "416x798" 369.100 416 960 1782 3072 798 798 814 862 -hsync -vsync
Detailed timing #2....... 1021x1356p at 0Hz
Modeline............... "1021x1356" 0.000 1021 1035 1547 3069 1356 1356 1366 2666 -hsync -vsync
Detailed timing #3....... 1532x1891p at 0Hz
Modeline............... "1532x1891" 0.000 1532 1648 2274 2300 1891 1897 1902 1992 -hsync -vsync
Detailed timing #4....... 1532x1330p at 0Hz
Modeline............... "1532x1330" 0.000 1532 1859 2416 3580 1330 1334 1364 3170 -hsync -vsync

Standard timings supported
720 x 400p at 70Hz - IBM VGA
720 x 400p at 88Hz - IBM XGA2
640 x 480p at 60Hz - IBM VGA
640 x 480p at 72Hz - VESA
640 x 480p at 75Hz - VESA
800 x 600p at 56Hz - VESA
800 x 600p at 60Hz - VESA
800 x 600p at 72Hz - VESA
640 x 480p at 85Hz - Manufacturer
800 x 600p at 85Hz - Manufacturer
1024 x 768p at 85Hz - Manufacturer
760 x 608p at 61Hz - VESA STD
760 x 608p at 81Hz - VESA STD
1904 x 1520p at 61Hz - VESA STD
368 x 292p at 61Hz - VESA STD
880 x 704p at 111Hz - VESA STD
368 x 276p at 120Hz - VESA STD

Report information
Date generated........... 4/10/2012
Software revision........ 2.60.0.972
Data source.............. Real-time 0x0011
Operating system......... 5.1.2600.2.Service Pack 3

Raw data
00,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,FF,00,4E,14,94,20,BC,08,00,00,34,11,03,6C,2B,1B,78,EA,C5,C6,A3,57,4A,9C,23,12,
4F,54,BF,EF,80,71,40,81,40,95,00,B3,00,81,CF,81,0F,81,4F,B3,0F,7C,2E,90,A0,60,1A,1E,40,30,20,36,
00,B1,0E,11,00,00,00,00,00,00,FD,00,38,4C,1E,55,0E,00,0A,20,20,20,20,20,20,00,00,00,FC,00,53,63,
65,70,74,72,65,20,20,0A,20,20,20,00,00,00,FC,00,58,32,30,57,47,2D,4E,61,67,61,49,49,0A,00,1E,31

No one on the web that I can find has posted a solution, though I can't be sure if writing a driver will work (if I can figure out how to do it.)

I grabbed the IEGD from Intel. But I haven't really got past step 1 on the page. I can't determine where to get that timing data from. It just might not be doable.

I wouldn't mind if you glanced at the link and told me what you think. I tried Henrik's driver, for a different chipset. It didn't work.

Thanks for all your attention to this. I hope it isn't cutting into real stuff.


--imm

[Make7]

24. I think I found the error in the EDID.

It looks like that Monitor Asset Manager is doing the same thing as the Extron EDID Manager. It shows the same weird data values for some of the parameters - but fortunately it also gave the whole 128-byte raw data block at the end so I could create a file to use in EDID Manager.

The two things that jump out at me most are the EDID version/revision numbers (mentioned in previous post) and the extension block flag. It says that there should be an additional 30 blocks of data - but for a VGA connection there shouldn't be any additional blocks. So on closer inspection, I saw that the data bytes weren't quite lining up right - but if I inserted a byte to make the EDID version/revision number make sense and deleted the very last byte to keep it 128 bytes total, everything seemed to line up and make sense. (I recomputed the value of the last byte, which is the checksum.) Here are the results with the edited EDID:

[div class="excerpt" style="border: 1px solid #bfbfbf; border-radius: 0.4615em;"]Block 0 (EDID Base Block), Bytes 0 - 127, 128 BYTES OF EDID CODE:

[font style="font-size:1.07em; font-family:monospace;"]00 FF FF FF FF FF FF 00
4E 14 94 20 BC 08 00 00
34 11 01 03 6C 2B 1B 78
EA C5 C6 A3 57 4A 9C 23
12 4F 54 BF EF 80 71 40
81 40 95 00 B3 00 81 CF
81 0F 81 4F B3 0F 7C 2E
90 A0 60 1A 1E 40 30 20
36 00 B1 0E 11 00 00 00
00 00 00 FD 00 38 4C 1E
55 0E 00 0A 20 20 20 20
20 20 00 00 00 FC 00 53
63 65 70 74 72 65 20 20
0A 20 20 20 00 00 00 FC
00 58 32 30 57 47 2D 4E
61 67 61 49 49 0A 00 4E[/font]

ID Manufacture Name : SPT
ID Product Code : 2094
ID Serial Number :
Week of Manufacture : 52
Year of Manufacture : 2007

EDID Version Number : 1
EDID Revision Number: 3

Video Input Definition: Analog
    0.700, 0.000 (0.700 V p-p)
    Separate SyncsComposite Syncs

Maximum Horizontal Image Size: 43 cm
Maximum Vertical Image Size : 27 cm
Display Gamma : 2.20
Power Management and Supported Feature(s):
    Standby, Suspend, Active Off/Very Low Power, RGB Color, Non-sRGB, Preferred Timing Mode

Color Characteristics
    Red Chromaticity : Rx = 0.636 Ry = 0.336
    Green Chromaticity : Gx = 0.290 Gy = 0.610
    Blue Chromaticity : Bx = 0.136 By = 0.070
    Default White Point: Wx = 0.306 Wy = 0.330

Established Timings I

    720 x 400 @ 70Hz (IBM, VGA)
    640 x 480 @ 60Hz (IBM, VGA)
    640 x 480 @ 67Hz (Apple, Mac II)
    640 x 480 @ 72Hz (VESA)
    640 x 480 @ 75Hz (VESA)
    800 x 600 @ 56Hz (VESA)
    800 x 600 @ 60Hz (VESA)

Established Timings II

    800 x 600 @ 72Hz (VESA)
    800 x 600 @ 75Hz (VESA)
    832 x 624 @ 75Hz (Apple, Mac II)
    1024 x 768 @ 60Hz (VESA)
    1024 x 768 @ 70Hz(VESA)
    1024 x 768 @ 75Hz (VESA)
    1280 x 1024 @ 75Hz (VESA)

Manufacturer's Timings

    1152 x 870 @ 75Hz (Apple, Mac II)

Standard Timings

    1152x864 @ 60 Hz (4:3 Aspect Ratio)
    1280x960 @ 60 Hz (4:3 Aspect Ratio)
    1440x900 @ 60 Hz (16:10 Aspect Ratio)
    1680x1050 @ 60 Hz (16:10 Aspect Ratio)
    1280x720 @ 75 Hz (16:9 Aspect Ratio)
    1280x800 @ 75 Hz (16:10 Aspect Ratio)
    1280x960 @ 75 Hz (4:3 Aspect Ratio)
    1680x1050 @ 75 Hz (16:10 Aspect Ratio)

Detailed Descriptor #1: Preferred Detailed Timing (1680x1050 @ 60Hz)

    Pixel Clock : 119 MHz
    Horizontal Image Size : 433 mm
    Vertical Image Size : 270 mm
    Refresh Mode : Non-interlaced
    Normal Display, No Stereo

    Horizontal:
        Active Time : 1680 Pixels
        Blanking Time : 160 Pixels
        Sync Offset : 48 Pixels
        Sync Pulse Width: 32 Pixels
        Border : 0 Pixels
        Frequency : 64 kHz

    Vertical:
        Active Time : 1050 Lines
        Blanking Time : 30 Lines
        Sync Offset : 3 Lines
        Sync Pulse Width: 6 Lines
        Border : 0 Lines

    Analog Composite, Horizontal Polarity (-), Vertical Polarity (-)

    Modeline: "1680x1050" 119.000 1680 1728 1760 1840 1050 1053 1059 1080 -hsync -vsync

Detailed Descriptor #2: Monitor Range Limits

    Horizontal Scan Range: 30kHz-85kHz
    Vertical Scan Range : 56Hz-76Hz
    Supported Pixel Clock: 140 MHz
    Secondary GTF : Not Supported

Detailed Descriptor #3: Monitor Name

    Monitor Name: Sceptre

Detailed Descriptor #4: Monitor Name

    Monitor Name: X20WG-NagaII

Extension Flag and Checksum
    Extension Block(s) : 0
    Checksum Value : 78
That makes way more sense - now the preferred timing is the native resolution of the monitor. Actually all of the information seems to makes sense after that one simple edit.

I guess we still don't know if the error occurred on the monitor side or on the PC's video card side. Did the monitor work properly with the last computer it was connected to?

The only relatively easy ideas off the top of my head to try to fix this involve modifying the registry (which probably isn't the best idea to recommend to someone over the internet - although I would barely hesitate doing it myself). I need to get back to work - perhaps I'll come up with a good solution if I think about it for a while.

[immoderate]

25. I'm feeling optimistic. No need to hurry.

It seems like if we change the registry to the numbers you have, it should work, right?

Can we create an .inf to do it? Can I tweak the registry myself? I'm getting brave!

Again, I appreciate the time you are giving to this. Thanks very much. I'm in no special hurry, so don't feel pressed. But is that a light at the end of the tunnel?


On edit: I went into regedit. I went to Modify Binary Data. It opened in a box and I made the changes that you specified. It looked perfect, but I hit Cancel, because I didn't know what would happen, or what precautions to take.

What do you think?

UPDATE

I used your numbers in the registry (after setting a system restore point.) The good news is: it booted. However, it was very slow to respond, lots of hourglass, and apparently wouldn't launch Regedit so I could check the numbers. I did a hard shutdown and restored.

So is it possible that the chipset will not allow the 1680x1050 resolution?

Thanks again.


--imm

[Make7]

26. That's what I would have tried.

I would have given it a 50%/50% chance of working at best. It would be useful to know how the EDID information gets saved to the registry - does it overwrite an existing EDID if it sees the same monitor but the data is different? Is the EDID information stored in multiple places in the registry and will cause a conflict by just editing one instance?

One thing that should be double checked is my calculation for the checksum. If you add all the hex bytes together, it should result in zero for the least significant byte (at least I think that's what it is supposed to be). I'm not sure if a bad checksum would really cause too much weirdness though.

What would be instructive to know is if the monitor or your video card is causing EDID errors. The best way to test that would be to hook up the monitor to another computer and read the EDID info - if it's messed up then the monitor is the problem. Also hooking up a different monitor to your computer would let us know if the EDID info from that monitor was reading correctly or not.

The other idea I had (that I wouldn't recommend) would be to delete the EDID and possibly any driver references of the Sceptre monitor from the registry and see if it reads the EDID correctly on reboot. Of course that solution is inherently more risky than your editing of the EDID block. It would be better to see if you can take your gear over to a friend's (or them bring stuff over to your place) to try to determine if it is the monitor or your video card/computer causing the issue. If it is the monitor, I know there is software that let's you write EDID info to devices - but I haven't ever used it and don't know what video card(s) it would work with.

I'll try to look at this stuff some more this weekend. Maybe doing a custom driver like you mentioned is the most viable solution - I just haven't had a chance to look at what that would entail.

[immoderate]

27. I downloaded a program from Intel to create .INFs

I linked to the web page with some instructions above. I am not sure about the timing information, which is the beginning. I don't trust the detected Modeline. And I don't understand it ... yet.

I also have combed the internet, and not found a solution to using this resolution with this chipset. That's why I'm wondering if the hardware is just incapable.

This monitor belongs to a friend, on long term loan, and I can ask him what resolution he used it at. He might know. Getting other equipment to play with may take some time.

Much appreciated.

--imm

[Make7]

35. I think the Intel chipset is capable of the native resolution.

If you look at the discussion found and linked to by pokerfan in post#5, you'll see that someone resolved their issue by removing a KVM switch from their signal path and got a monitor to work at 1680x1050 (link). Apparently it didn't work because the computer could not read the EDID from the monitor through the KVM and therefore did not know what resolutions it was capable of.

You seem to have a similar issue in that your EDID data has an error and the computer can't determine what resolutions the monitor will accept. It seems the EDID data is vital to having the proper resolution options in the Intel graphics driver's control panel. My feeling is that doing a custom monitor driver is not going to fix the issue since you will in all likelihood just be duplicating what the Sceptre drivers already do.

I think the best way to proceed is to determine if the monitor or your graphics card is causing the EDID data errors. If your friend has the computer that the monitor was used with, the EDID data should still be in their registry. You should ask them if they are comfortable enough with the registry editor to look up the data and do a couple of screencaps to get the entire 128 byte block to compare to your registry EDID info. If their data is wrong and identical to yours then the odds are very good that the EDID data stored in the monitor is bad. If theirs looks like the corrected block that I posted, then your card might have an issue.

BTW - that site that you linked to about creating custom drivers seems to be offline at the moment. I seem to remember reading an explanation of the modeline data on there when you first posted it - but I can't remember how detailed it was. The 1680x1050 modeline data from the corrected EDID info I posted in post#24 seems to be in proportion to the other modeline data I can see from a few EDID blocks in my registry - so if you get to the point of wanting to try a custom driver, I think that data would probably work (but is probably no different than that used by the Sceptre drivers).

[immoderate]

36. I spoke to the person who lent me the monitor.

Apparently he never had is set to its native resolution. But he said he had a graphics card I could try. It might be a week or two before I can get it from him.

I greatly appreciate your help. If I get some more questions, I will PM you, if you don't mind.

Thanks.

--imm

[Make7]

37. The same company that offers the Monitor Asset Manager software...

... also offers a shareware program called PowerStrip. I haven't used either one, but it looks like you can enter timing information in realtime for a connected monitor with PowerStrip - which might be a scary proposition unless you have another monitor to go with that extra card. Although it stands to reason that if you are making adjustments with only one monitor, there would be some way to cancel the changes or go to a default resolution should it blank out the display.

I just thought it might be a way to verify if your Intel video chipset would spit out the native resolution of the Sceptre monitor. You'd likely have to see how the timing info needs to be entered in PowerStrip and then look up that data up for the Sceptre. It also looks like the registered version allows writing EDID info to displays (although I'm sure that depends on whether or not the video card is capable). Perhaps a first step would be to see if the PowerStrip software will even work with your graphics card.

I also noticed that the webpage for Monitor Asset Manager says that it reads the EDID data from the connected monitor and not from what is stored in the registry, so we can at least rule out a registry data error. It's probably the monitor with the problem, but still could be the video card - hopefully we'll find out when you get the second card.

Feel free to PM me anytime, even if it's not about EDIDs.

[immoderate]

39. Thanks for staying with me. I'll get around to the graphics card.

May be some time, as I am suddenly busy. But I'll let you know if there's some event.

--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

38. not to butt in but...

...have you tried an alternate monitor cable?
Or maybe just check continuity with an Ohmmeter?

[immoderate]

40. If I can get a hold of one...

I'd try it.

But I don't think it's a connection problem. Hard to figure what would disallow a configuration, yet work well with all the other resolutions.


--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

41. See any damage to the pins on either end? n/t

[pokerfan]

5. You're not alone

There's some discussion here complete with a solution (for the OP anyway). YMMV:

I cannot get my Dell 2005FPW widescreen LCD to run at the native resolution of 1680x1050. The best I can get is 1280x1024.

Intel 82865G onboard graphics v6.14.10.3943

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=857581

A KVM switch between the monitor and VGA may prevent the VGA from completely identifying the monitor. I say completely because the XP Hardware manager always said that the 2005FPW was operating correctly. However, the additional 1680x1050 resolution was never acessible.

However, if I plug the monitor directly into the VGA card using the analog cable, then the VGA is able to completely recognize the 2005FPW monitor and the 1680x1050 resolution is now accessible. XP Display properties will allow me to set the Intel VGA to this resolution.

Folowing that, I can reconnect the KVM and everything works normally -- even with the KVM between the monitor and the Intel VGA. I now have the full 1680x1050 resolution available from my Intel 82865G onboard video graphics adapter using the analog VGA connector.

[immoderate]

7. Thanks for the link. I don't have a KVM.

However it's interesting that this is not uncommon. I'll try Intel and Sceptre again, meanwhile.

--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

28. Just a thought...

...20" monitors are relatively reasonable: < http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824009256 >

[immoderate]

29. Came to mind...

Graphics cards are even cheaper. > $30.

Edit: Have to add this is a time of extreme austerity for me.


--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

30. austerity...

...been there done that

got the t-shirt and sold it for food

best of luck, is there anything else you need help with?
job hunting, resources...

feel free to message me

[immoderate]

31. I'm squeezing through.

Thanks for the offer. I'm bookmarking. If it's desperate, you're on my list.

--imm

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

32. let me know :) n/t

[timesup]

33. Works fine at 1600 by 1200?

That is a higher res than the one you have listed as native, so apparently 1600 by 1200 is native.

I'd leave it alone, you said it worked fine there.

...and maybe stop drawing circles?

[immoderate]

34. I should have said, "adequate, unless I need to do serious graphics."

There is an overall lack of crispness, particularly at small font sizes. And the point is, it won't do circles, or any shape accurately.

I'm sure there are some that won't notice anything wrong -- but I do.


--imm