Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
Originally posted by: obiwaynekenobi
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
you know people say that, but I have a hard time buying it.
I've pushed my refresh rate up to 120 Mhz on a monitor which I know didn't support it. and I have never once expirenced any kind of damage to my monitor
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
That is a load of crap, unless the guy had a monitor over 10 years old.
Monitors haven't been built without auto-shutoff when given an out-of-range sync rate since the early 90s.
My 17" monitor has been running at the limits of its sync range for 8 years now. (1920x1280x70 currently, lower resolutions with higher refresh in games, occasional 170Hz refresh for movies).
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
He didn't by chance have an ATI video card, did he?
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
That is a load of crap, unless the guy had a monitor over 10 years old.
Monitors haven't been built without auto-shutoff when given an out-of-range sync rate since the early 90s.
My 17" monitor has been running at the limits of its sync range for 8 years now. (1920x1280x70 currently, lower resolutions with higher refresh in games, occasional 170Hz refresh for movies).
a 17" monitor at 1920x1280. sure.![]()
Originally posted by: Atlantean
haha my friend was plugging it into his computer and it made a sound and fizzled... seemed to explode and there was a horrible sound. Strange though cause it was working fine till he plugged it into his computer. Thank god for extra monitors.
Originally posted by: isekii
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
That is a load of crap, unless the guy had a monitor over 10 years old.
Monitors haven't been built without auto-shutoff when given an out-of-range sync rate since the early 90s.
My 17" monitor has been running at the limits of its sync range for 8 years now. (1920x1280x70 currently, lower resolutions with higher refresh in games, occasional 170Hz refresh for movies).
a 17" monitor at 1920x1280. sure.![]()
lol yea i call bs
a 17" at 1920x1280 that's 8 years old ?
Maybe your eyese are the ones that is doing 1920x1280 from droppin E
Originally posted by: Atlantean
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
He didn't by chance have an ATI video card, did he?
Yeah he did, why do you ask?
Originally posted by: Krugger
Originally posted by: Atlantean
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
He didn't by chance have an ATI video card, did he?
Yeah he did, why do you ask?
i clicked on this thread thinking the same thing. did he also happed to install the latest ATI Catalyst drivers? the 3.8's? cause they apparently killed a few monitors this time around. check out rage3d.com's boards.
-Krugger
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: isekii
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
That is a load of crap, unless the guy had a monitor over 10 years old.
Monitors haven't been built without auto-shutoff when given an out-of-range sync rate since the early 90s.
My 17" monitor has been running at the limits of its sync range for 8 years now. (1920x1280x70 currently, lower resolutions with higher refresh in games, occasional 170Hz refresh for movies).
a 17" monitor at 1920x1280. sure.![]()
lol yea i call bs
a 17" at 1920x1280 that's 8 years old ?
Maybe your eyese are the ones that is doing 1920x1280 from droppin E
Believe it or not, it does it just fine. And was in the $250-$300 range back in 1995.
Maybe you are used to silly low amounts of desktop real-estate from LCDs which have a long way to catch up?
Originally posted by: Linux23
Originally posted by: glugglug
Originally posted by: CFster
Probably had the refresh rate set too high in his display properties...
That is a load of crap, unless the guy had a monitor over 10 years old.
Monitors haven't been built without auto-shutoff when given an out-of-range sync rate since the early 90s.
My 17" monitor has been running at the limits of its sync range for 8 years now. (1920x1280x70 currently, lower resolutions with higher refresh in games, occasional 170Hz refresh for movies).
a 17" monitor at 1920x1280. sure.![]()
Originally posted by: glugglug
I put a screenie from my 17" cranked up to 1920x1440 online here
Note the specs read from EDID in powerstrip (plug & play data). This IS an old Goldstar 78i. What the monitor tells PnP is its maximum resolution of 1280x1024 and max horizontal scan of 80Hz is obviously wrong, as evidenced by the video mode used in the screenshot. The EDID (PnP data) is NOT the specs/monitor INF file I use. I had powerstrip create a custom INF based on what I experimentally determined to be the real limits.
Oh I was one year off on the age, PnP says it was built in the first week of 1996.
Don't know why it says 18" in PnP, yet if you figure out the diagonal from the 330x250mm horizontalxvertical that it tells you, that works out to 16.234" viewing area.
Originally posted by: SSP
So basically your going over the manufactures specs. My 17inch LCD can do 1600x1200 out of spec, but I wont run it at that res. I dont want to lower the life time of the monitor. But if you can push your monitor for that long.. its pretty damn good. My old KDS 17" would die within an hour.
Originally posted by: glugglug
I put a screenie from my 17" cranked up to 1920x1440 online here
Note the specs read from EDID in powerstrip (plug & play data). This IS an old Goldstar 78i. What the monitor tells PnP is its maximum resolution of 1280x1024 and max horizontal scan of 80Hz is obviously wrong, as evidenced by the video mode used in the screenshot. The EDID (PnP data) is NOT the specs/monitor INF file I use. I had powerstrip create a custom INF based on what I experimentally determined to be the real limits.
Oh I was one year off on the age, PnP says it was built in the first week of 1996.
Don't know why it says 18" in PnP, yet if you figure out the diagonal from the 330x250mm horizontalxvertical that it tells you, that works out to 16.234" viewing area.
Yes, that's why I asked. ATI is investigating this claim. Check out rage3d.com for news.Originally posted by: Krugger
Originally posted by: Atlantean
Originally posted by: Pacfanweb
He didn't by chance have an ATI video card, did he?
Yeah he did, why do you ask?
i clicked on this thread thinking the same thing. did he also happed to install the latest ATI Catalyst drivers? the 3.8's? cause they apparently killed a few monitors this time around. check out rage3d.com's boards.
-Krugger