I got a new monitor, 17" !Widescreen for my cousins, and windows xp wont let me run 1280 x 720.only 1280 x 800....any ideas?

Thanks

Weird, my monitor is 4:3 and I can select 1280x720. It's possible that, for some reason, the resolutions your monitors supports is not being detected correctly by your graphics card driver. If that's the case, it will stop you selecting resolutions and refresh rates it thinks your monitor does not support. I don't know about nVidia drivers, but with ATI at least you can turn off EDID in the CCC and specify your own maximums; you should then be able to use any resolution lower than that.

I think nVidia drivers also have an option somewhere to add custom resolutions; that might be a more convenient solution.

Why you want 1280x720? It's non-native resolution for your monitor.

1280x720 aspect ratio is 16:9, while your monitor has 16:10. And 1280x800 is 16:10.

There is no problem.

Quote from deggis :

Why you want 1280x720? It's non-native resolution for your monitor.

1280x720 aspect ratio is 16:9, while your monitor has 16:10. And 1280x800 is 16:10.

There is no problem.

Why do they have to be annoying and make it 16:10, when all movies are in 16:9... So you still get annoying black bars around the movie picture whether you choose a widescreen monitor or not

Why are so many 'square' TFTs 5:4 instead of 4:3? Because the world is mad, that's why.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Why are so many 'square' TFTs 5:4 instead of 4:3? Because the world is mad, that's why.

+ 1

But 4:3 Isn't really square either

i dont know why it is like that, it just is

The graphics card is onboard i think, the panel is "Intel Extreme Graphics"....it only gives me an option of 1280x900 and 800X---(forgot )

Quote from JO53PHS :

Why do they have to be annoying and make it 16:10, when all movies are in 16:9... So you still get annoying black bars around the movie picture whether you choose a widescreen monitor or not

Because computer programs benefit more from heigth than width, so they decided to use a bit of compromise instead of going fully 16:9. Besides most movies are in a even more wider aspect ratio so they aren't full screened even in a 16:9 display.

Quote from Bob Smith :

Why are so many 'square' TFTs 5:4 instead of 4:3? Because the world is mad, that's why.

Because 1280x1024 resolution is 5:4. And 1280x1024 is used because it's a standard resolution. And it's a standard because it fitted better in the memory (or something like that) in the old days when resolutions were standardized.

@harjun: I am pretty sure your monitor isn't 1280x720, it's most likely 1280x800.

Quote from geeman1 :

Because computer programs benefit more from heigth than width, so they decided to use a bit of compromise instead of going fully 16:9. Besides most movies are in a even more wider aspect ratio so they aren't full screened even in a 16:9 display.
Because 1280x1024 resolution is 5:4. And 1280x1024 is used because it's a standard resolution. And it's a standard because it fitted better in the memory (or something like that) in the old days when resolutions were standardized.

@harjun: I am pretty sure your monitor isn't 1280x720, it's most likely 1280x800.

it's not it even says on the box its 1280x720

Quote from geeman1 :

Because 1280x1024 resolution is 5:4. And 1280x1024 is used because it's a standard resolution. And it's a standard because it fitted better in the memory (or something like that) in the old days when resolutions were standardized.

Aha, I didn't know that. So I need to slap whoever made that standard instead of using 960. What the programming/hardware benefits, non-square pixels are just nasty. There certainly weren't any 5:4 monitors around back then.

I remember Windows 3.1 having an option for 1280x1024 and not 960 but I never gave it that much thought at the time, plus my 17" monitor back in '92 could only handle 60Hz at that res which just strains my eyes, so I never bothered anyway.

Optimally widescreen monitors/tvs should be 2.39:1 (most used aspect ratio in movies). We should slap the guy in the face who invented 16:9. Obviously, that might be a bit overkill for casual tv programs like news...

Install the correct driver for the monitor, and it will give you all the display modes it can possibly display.

Quote from geeman1 :

Because 1280x1024 resolution is 5:4. And 1280x1024 is used because it's a standard resolution. And it's a standard because it fitted better in the memory (or something like that) in the old days when resolutions were standardized.

its really an oddball among resolutions and ive never understood the point of it
only one on the 5:4 line ... well except for the really silly one down right
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Video_Standards.svg

I like 1280x1024. That's pretty much all I've ever used actually until my good ol' 1400x1050 on this laptop. But my desktop still runs on two 1280x1024 monitors...

...unless its running on the 1024x768 projector.

Personally, unless the resolution is 1280x1024 or greater, I don't buy, because the screen just gets too cramped with today's programs.

Quote from deggis :

Optimally widescreen monitors/tvs should be 2.39:1 (most used aspect ratio in movies). We should slap the guy in the face who invented 16:9. Obviously, that might be a bit overkill for casual tv programs like news...

Yeah. 16:9 was invented as a compromise between wide movies and regular 'square' TV programs.

Quote from harjun :

I got a new monitor, 17" !Widescreen for my cousins, and windows xp wont let me run 1280 x 720.only 1280 x 800....any ideas?

Thanks

Did you buy a PC monitor or an LCD TV that has a PC input?

1280x800 on a 17" screen?

I get that on my 15.4" laptop screen.

Laptop screens are very high resolution - mine runs at 1680*1050 which is the "accepted" resolution of 20"/22" Widescreen monitors.

IIRC Dell made a 1900*1200 LCD panel for a 15.4 laptop, which is the same resolution that 24" monitors run at.

Usually the distance you are from a laptop is much smaller than that of the distance between your monitor and you.

its alright now, i got a new graphics card for my cousins,...just some cheap old one for like...£10, and it works good now