per pixel borders, refresh rates, and ati's 9200 serie [SOLVED :)]

help me techies out there! (pretty please? :) )

Published on October 29, 2005 By iseekserendipity In Personal Computing

so i have the "new" windowblinds 5 beta for a while now. and i fixed my pixel border support. it seems that it i lower my resolution, to 1152 x 864, i can get my refresh rate to 75 and hence support pixel transparency (per pixel support). this realization came through several searches, lots of tweaking with my display config, and a thorough search at ati's site.

but now, i adore the per pixel support, and love a lot of the new skins for wb 5 beta, but i love even more having the extra space on my screen (i go bonkers for 1280 x 1024 - that is my prefered configuration). so here comes a list of my equipment, and my question:
i run xp sp 2, got myself the ati 9200 se just to play the sims (can you tell i'm serious about this game?

) and upgraded my drivers to the latest (as of two weeks ago, took a whole lot of time downloading the 25 mb with my dialup! LOL). i also have an arrow microsystems (writing what's written on my screen) real vision 17is. i "think" it's a decent screen, and i know they don't sell better graphic cards at any price i can afford.
[pause to make this clear:
- xp
- ati 9200
- arrow microsystems (realvision 17s - detected as plug & play screen, have not found any drivers for it yet) -- end of pause]
looking into my ati advanced config, i tried to view the listed supported resolution that "do not seem" to be supported by my screen. it should be able to go to 2048 x 1536, tru colors (32 bits) at a frame rate of 85 hertz. suported by my screen it only goes to 1280 x 1024 (which is perfect for me though!) but at a top frame rate of 65 hertz.

the question is: how can i get support for 75 hertz minimum? i tried to "force it" to 1280 x 1024 with a frame rate of 75, but although everything is well displayed, my windowblinds troubleshooting window tells me that suddenly (well, not so sudden now) my pc doesn't support per pixel borders.

sure, i'm a spoilt brat and want the best of both world! LOL i want the high resolution with the per pixel support!
feel free to answer the following questions:
- do i need to get a new screen? (current is 17 inches, should i go for 19 - much more expensive: nearly 4x the price of 17)
- a new graphic card? if yes, which is best?
- someone told me it could be my electrical input. i have a surger (sp), but do i need to get a stronger one? (don't ask what the config is, i just got the one i could afford)

sorry to ask this here, but i really dont know who to ask. if i'm going to invest in upping my pc, i'd love to get something that corresponds to my needs as opposed to something that i want on a whim (usual buying technique! *shame*)

Comments

Hus

on Oct 29, 2005

I think it's your monitor, if anything. The 9200 series should support per-pixel fine, and from what you say in your post, it does...if the refresh rate on your monitor is higher. So I think a new monitor and you should be good to go. Also, as far as I know, a 17" monitor is designed for 1024x768 resolution as the "optimal" size. If you go up to 19", the standard res. is 1280x1024. A new 19" CRT is not that expensive at all, you can get a top of the line for close to $200. A cheaper one will run you quite a bit less.

I'd recommend this one: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16824116281

I have the same one, lasted me 4 years and still going strong...

Halluci

on Oct 29, 2005

your monitor should be fine

it should be able to go to 2048 x 1536, tru colors (32 bits) at a frame rate of 85 hertz

If this is true and the control panel isn't showing any resolution beyond 1280x1024, try this:

open up ATI control panel, and go to the "displays" tab.

under displays, click on monitor to open up the monitor properties window.

UNCHECK the circle that says "Use DDC information"

then under "Maximum Resolution" change it to "2040 x 1536", and under "Maximum Refresh" change it to "200 Hz" (don't worry about the fact that your monitor only goes up to 85 hz at 2040 x 1536, just set the maximum refresh rate to the highest possible value, which should be 200 Hz. When you actually apply the screen size of 2040 x 1536, your card should automatically detect the highest refresh that works for your monitor and change the refresh back to 85 hz.) Leave the Refresh Rate Overide at disabled.

Click apply, and your done! (You may have to restart your computer before the settings take place). Now, if it worked, you should be able to see all screen resolutions up to 2040 x 1536 under display properties, and after you apply a resolution, just go under the advanced tab and set your refresh rate to whatever you want.

I think the problem that is causing the screen resolutions not showing up, or the refresh rates not applying themselves correctly is because ATI cards have trouble reading the DDC informaion from certain monitors; my monitor showed all the correct display sizes and refresh rates, however, before I did these steps, it would always default back to the lowest refresh rate possible even if I selected a different refresh rate and tried to apply it.

Anyway, try it out and tell me if it works.

Jonep

on Oct 29, 2005

I had the same problem with my 9200 pro no per pixel but lower res and it works fine, try this fix to get your screen res back to 1280x1024

https://www.wincustomize.com/Forums.aspx?ForumID=167&AID=88932#688177

hope I've been a help

Neil Banfield

on Oct 29, 2005

It appears to be a driver bug with the 9200 cards. Your monitor is fine.

iseekserendipity

on Oct 30, 2005

thank you all for your replies!

hus: i don't think you realize that i'm not in the states. here in madagascar, it's hard getting the right screen at an affordable price, and even getting it shipped in, with taxes & transport fees, it does bring the price quite up! but thank you for replying

halluci: i tried this solution, but when i reloaded the pc, i kept getting a message from my screen of it being out of range. i just had to restart it with "last functionnal configuration" to get it back to the old version though. yet thank you for trying! (maybe it just didn't work for me though

)
jonep: for some reason, the last time i had search for info on this i hadn't found any posts regarding this issue. so of course i hadn't checked before posting this article... thank you! your solution worked perfectly for me!
neil: thanks for reassuring me! with constant hardware upgrades, i'd like to only up my pc when there is something really new and different from my current config. so now i know it's worth waiting until there is a whole new performant graphic card available out there.

once again, thank you all for your replies. i'm pretty good at dealing with my pc, but for some things i'm just lost!

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!