Some video cards don't handle VGA Text Mode correctly

[Amitu]

Hello,

For the purposes of this post, I define VTM (VGA Text Mode)
as the text that the Video BIOS of a video module displays on screen,
_before_ any OS (Linux, Windows, etc.) or application (DOS, etc.)
installs their graphics driver (for entering the "graphics" mode).
Includes the BIOS "Splashing Screen", obviously.

- PROBLEM (in a nutshell)
Certain video cards display VTM still in 4:3 aspect
when connected to a wide-screen (16:9) monitor
(on the DVI input).

The ASUS "EN9500GT" PCIe x16 card in particular.

I noticed this behavior with an ASUS "P5E-VM HDMI" motherboard
on replacing the "native" IGD, intel G35 (which works
perfectly on any aspect monitor) with the above card.

After numerous technical support complaints and escalation,
after mentioning that on another ASUS based, P4S533-MX board
an ancient, low-end, Chaintech GeForce FX-5500 had no
problems handling the "low level vga mode" when transitioning
from a Sony 4:3 to a "wide" (16:10) Samsung monitor,
an ASUS specialist finally had this to say,

<< Under low level vga mode certain graphics cards are not
capable of scaling to full screen.
I have encountered this behavior on newer GPUs on both notebook
and desktop systems. >>

QUESTIONS and PLEADINGS for HELP

1. Is this problem known at all? Does anybody care?
Is there a "repository" somewhere with a list of "dirty" cards
to be avoided by somebody who still uses/needs text mode?
OTOH, if the problem is more wide-spread, that's scary
for us all-timers! You're at a loss about how to upgrade.

2. I plan to build a system using i5 (and its IGD).
Is it possible that intel has regressed to the level where
they no longer care about text mode display (on the almost
ubiquitous wide-screen monitors), nowadays?
After my ASUS experience, I'm nervous now.

3. Can anybody recommend a card I can use in my "P5E-VM HDMI",
which has already been "validated" in VTM?
Middle to Low end (up to, say $100).
PowerDVD cannot run Blu-ray on the system (WinXP SP3) with
the existing G35 (I have to guess, the EN9500GT card
would've qualified - I hadn't tested that before returning it!)

NOTE: Any other gory details available upon request.

I'd appreciate any helpful comments.
Thank you.

 

[VirtualLarry]

I don't get what the problem is. VGA text mode is a standard, with a defined resolution. Back then, all they had were 4:3 monitors, so that mode is a 4:3 mode.

Any decent LCD will scale that mode up to full-screen, whether or not the LCD is a widescreen or not.

Edit: Unless your LCD monitor supports aspect-correct scaling. In which case, it will still be displayed in 4:3 ratio, even on a widescreen display.

It's all up to your LCD really, how it handles that. It's in no way the fault of the video card.

 

[Amitu]

> I don't get what the problem is. VGA text mode is a standard ...

It's my fault for creating confusion by using big words like VGA text mode, etc.
I will restate the problem in as simple terms as possible.
Whether people know or care about VGA, DOS, Linux text mode,
all PC users should know and care about the "BIOS Setup Screen"
(the "BSS" in what follows).

My PROBLEM (restated):
Certain video cards display the BSS in 4:3 ("narrow") aspect on
a 16:9 or 16:10 ("wide") screen monitor.

> Any decent LCD will scale that mode up to full-screen ...

The wide-screen monitors I've been using are
Samsung-205BW
Samsung-2494SW
Pretty decent I'd say, although that's a matter of personal taste and technical expertise.

> Unless your LCD monitor supports aspect-correct scaling...

They do support "aspect-correct scaling" from what I noticed.
Also, please see below.

> It's in no way the fault of the video card

I repeat and maybe further clarify:
How can that _not_ be the fault of the card if:

1. On either monitor, _both_ the Chaintech GeForce FX-5500 (PCI)
and the intel G35 (IGD), display the BSS in _wide_, full-screen.

2. On either monitor, the ASUS EN9500GT (PCIe x16) card displays
the BSS in _narrow_ screen (4:3) aspect.
As I mentioned, the card replaced the G35 in the ASUS "P5E-VM HDMI"
machine. Temporarily, until returned.

3. Repeating the words of the ASUS specialist:
<< Under low level vga mode certain graphics cards are not
capable of scaling to full screen.
I have encountered this behavior on newer GPUs on both notebook
and desktop systems. >>

Note: Interestingly, at newegg where I'd bought the card
the item is flagged as "Currently Unavailable" now.
This is circumstantial to be sure, but I see it as a bad sign.
Good signs would be, "OUT OF STOCK" or "Discontinued".
-----------------------------------------------

NOTE: I apologize for using some big words again.
I believe (in my humble opinion) the BIOS firmware (the latest at the time)
of the ASUS card could not handle the EDID of the monitor properly.
Similar to, according to the ASUS guy, some other "newer" video modules.

I understand you're using the Westinghouse TV as monitor.
For all four machines?
Please tell me in what aspect (screen) do you see the BSS.
If not on all four, at least on the A7GM-S with its "VGA on Die".

Thank you for your interest.

PS Please let's not lose sight of what I want actually,
as I noted in the original post, a video card "guaranteed" to
show BSS on a wide-screen monitor.
(i.e., in my own words, display text in full-screen)
up to $100, preferably NVidia (to minimize grief with Linux)

 

[VirtualLarry]

My PROBLEM (restated):
Certain video cards display the BSS in 4:3 ("narrow") aspect on
a 16:9 or 16:10 ("wide") screen monitor.

> Any decent LCD will scale that mode up to full-screen ...

The wide-screen monitors I've been using are
Samsung-205BW
Samsung-2494SW
Pretty decent I'd say, although that's a matter of personal taste and technical expertise.

Hmm, I have a 205BW, I'll have to check it next time I hook it up.

I understand you're using the Westinghouse TV as monitor.
For all four machines?
Please tell me in what aspect (screen) do you see the BSS.
If not on all four, at least on the A7GM-S with its "VGA on Die".

Thank you for your interest.

I'm not at home right now, but I'll check it when I get home and reboot the machine.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Ok, on my Westinghouse, with the A7GM-S 1.0 connected via HDMI to the HDM 1 on my LCD TV - it displays the BIOS POST screen in 4:3 mode. Normal XP bootup is set to 1366x768 and displays in widescreen.

In a nutshell, VGA text mode is always going to be a 4:3 mode, period. Whether that mode gets displayed in a 4:3 ratio on a widescreen display depends on whether aspect-ratio-correct scaling is used. Older displays would stretch, newer displays do have aspect-ratio-correct scaling, like my LCD TV apparently.

So I'm not really sure what you're looking for. See if you have an option to disable aspect-ratio-correct scaling on your display device.

 

[busydude]

I am currently using ATI 5750 and my BIOS screen is being displayed at the full 16:10 aspect ratio. I can also confirm that while using the on board graphics of 790GX chipset.

There was a member who made a remark on this. He moved from an Nvidia card to ATI card and saw native aspect ratio being displayed for his BIOS. Let me dig that up for you.

EDIT: here is that remark. He upgraded from 8800 series card to ATI 5850.

Okay after running through most all my other games I will say I take back most of my negativity. Gothic is the only one I had issue with..everything else runs without problems. So ATI may have some issues, but overall it runs just fine. So I apologize for my earlier ranting. If one expects problems one does not have to look hard to find them.
That being said I will say that the ati card plays much nicer with my monitor than the nvidia card.. which is odd. What I mean by that is the nvidia card would not allow aspect until it's software loaded. ati allows aspect on boot which means the bios screen is no longer stretched and skewed.

 

[Qbah]

I have a Sapphire HD4350 and a Samsung 245B+ 24" LCD together with a 40" HDTV both connected to the card (DVI + DVI>HDMI). When I boot the computer, the LCD doesn't stretch the screen (shows black bars on both sides - so keeps the aspect), however the HDTV does stretch it - it's clearly visible at the bootup logo and looks bad.

I'd say it depends on the card+monitor combination. As you can see, my card works fine on one screen, doesn't work so great on another. So it's really hard to say which one will be guaranteed to work. I'm pretty sure a HD5450 should be fine (it's a new card so technically it should be very compatible with the common LCDs).

 

[ViRGE]

As Larry already noted, VGA Text Mode is quite old. The standard according to the documents I can find call for 720x400, but for all intents and purposes it may as well be 640x480.

Anyhow, there are 3 ways for a video card to pipe out 640x480, in order of most correct to least correct.

1) VTM is sent at 640x480
2) VTM is scaled to the monitor's native resolution in an aspect-correct manner, with appropriate padding to maintain a 4:3 display ratio.
3) VTM is scaled to the monitor's native resolution in an aspect-incorrect manner with no padding.

If I'm understanding your situation correctly, you want a card that does #3, but you keep finding cards that do #2?

I'll answer your questions first, then I'll get in to the technical reasons.

1) Is this a problem? No. VTM is basically unused. Along the same lines, no one really cares. In fact this is the first time I've seen anyone complain about the issue in the manner you listed. I've only ever seen complaints about video cards that are doing aspect-incorrect scaling, and those complaints are considered trivial.

In any case, I am not aware of a list like you describe. I'd imagine someone could make a list of video cards and how they scale VTM, but again this goes back to the fact that no one seems to care.

2) I have not used the i5, so I cannot comment.

3) I haven't done enough testing to answer this either (I don't have a widescreen monitor to test this).

Now with that out of the way, I'd like to ask a question: why do you want a video card with aspect-incorrect scaling?

In my list above I ordered things by "correctness". The most-correct solution for a video card is to display VTM at its appropriate resolution in the first place. Scaling should be handled by the monitor when possible.

If a video card can't display VTM at the right resolution, the next action should be to display an image at the monitor's native resolution using aspect-correct scaling. So for a 24" 1920x1200 monitor for example, 640x480 should be internally scaled to 1600x1200, and then padded to 1920x1200 and transmitted as such. This maintains the proper text proportions on larger monitors.

The least-correct solution is to simply scale up 640x480 to the monitor's native resolution with no regard for the aspect ratio. So for our 24" monitor, 640x480 would be scaled straight to 1920x1200 without taking the aspect ratio in to consideration, resulting in everything in VTM being wider than it's supposed to be.

You seem to be asking for the least-correct solution, which I don't think is necessary. Looking at your Samsung-2494SW, the user's manual says that the OSD supports image scaling controls. There are two options: Auto, and Wide. Auto is aspect-correct scaling, while Wide is aspect-incorrect scaling. So the easiest solution for you would seem to be that you should set your monitor to use the Wide scaling option. That way regardless of how the video card handles the issue, the end result will be that VTM is scaled in an aspect-incorrect manner to the full resolution of your monitor.

 

[Qbah]

Though, Virge, how would you explain the fact that his IGP and FX5500 stretch the screen and the 9500GT didn't? If the monitor is the only one doing processing, it shouldn't really matter what graphics card is sending the data. And in OP's case it does.

However, if you want to go from "good" (keep aspect with bars) to "bad" (strech), just disable it in the LCD's OSD, as Virge wrote. The other way round may be not possible though...

 

[ViRGE]

Though, Virge, how would you explain the fact that his IGP and FX5500 stretch the screen and the 9500GT didn't? If the monitor is the only one doing processing, it shouldn't really matter what graphics card is sending the data. And in OP's case it does.

The card does some processing too. As I listed in my 3 options, it can do any one of them. It sounds like the FX5500 is taking option #3 (aspect-incorrect scaling) while the 9500GT is on option #2 or #1. If all cards were doing options #1 or #2, he would never see aspect-incorrect scaling on the same monitor without adjusting the monitor itself.

 

[Qbah]

The card does some processing too. As I listed in my 3 options, it can do any one of them. It sounds like the FX5500 is taking option #3 (aspect-incorrect scaling) while the 9500GT is on option #2 or #1. If all cards were doing options #1 or #2, he would never see aspect-incorrect scaling on the same monitor without adjusting the monitor itself.

Well then, would you say my card would fit the OP's requirements? As it seems it doesn't do any scaling processing by itself (visible on my HDTV and the older 245B - bootup screens are /were stretched). And I think this is what the OP wants? He returned the 9500GT anyway.

 

[ViRGE]

No. Your HD4350 is doing #1 or #2. If it was #3, you'd be getting an aspect-incorrect result regardless of the specific widescreen monitor or how you had it configured. The OP apparently wants a card that is doing aspect-incorrect scaling on its own.

 

[Qbah]

No. Your HD4350 is doing #1 or #2. If it was #3, you'd be getting an aspect-incorrect result regardless of the specific widescreen monitor or how you had it configured. The OP apparently wants a card that is doing aspect-incorrect scaling on its own.

okay, now I got it

 

[busydude]

I am sorry to drag this topic but ViRGE, does the pic of BIOS screen shown below, fit the description of aspect-incorrect scaling?

 

[ViRGE]

You linked to something on your private GMail account, yasavy. I can't see it.

 

[busydude]

You linked to something on your private GMail account, yasavy. I can't see it.

Oops, my bad. Here it is

 

[ViRGE]

Oops, my bad. Here it is

Yes, that's aspect-incorrect scaling.

 

[Amitu]

Besides offering thanks for your comments and interest,
this is a quick post to make a single remark on one of the
recurring subjects in this thread.

You guys are talking about the 4:3 "VGA text" screen "stretch"
on a wide-screen as something terribly incorrect,
almost bordering on illegal.
It's not like the horrible shock when your favorite Angelina Jolie pic
in 4:3 would suddenly morph on you into a 16:9 Kirstie Alley.
Not at all. You may be hit by that on certain TV programs when
they show old 4:3 footage in "HD", but here we're dealing with _text_!

In this case, it's just that the same 4:3 80x25 text is now seen in
all its glory, as it should, on the practically universal wide-screens.
The let-down when you get the "text" back in 4:3 after
installing a fancy, new card with a firmware slapped together
in haste is beyond words!

I understand we're in a global recession; you don't have to
grab the latest 30 incher touted on AnandTech recently.
A 20 - 24 in. should suffice to subject yourselves to this
unbelievable experience.

By not detecting a single "DOS" or "Linux" word in any of the posts,
one would guess you're directly-into-graphics type of guys.
However, in not enjoying the sight of the BIOS Setup Screen,
the DOS screen on a new build or the memtest86 in 16:9,
you're missing a lot, "VGA-incorrect" as it might be!

BTW, yasasvy's picture above; that's the 16:9 text I've been talking about.

 

[Itchrelief]

In this case, it's just that the same 4:3 80x25 text is now seen in
all its glory, as it should, on the practically universal wide-screens.
The let-down when you get the "text" back in 4:3 after
installing a fancy, new card with a firmware slapped together
in haste is beyond words!

By not detecting a single "DOS" or "Linux" word in any of the posts,
one would guess you're directly-into-graphics type of guys.
However, in not enjoying the sight of the BIOS Setup Screen,
the DOS screen on a new build or the memtest86 in 16:9,
you're missing a lot, "VGA-incorrect" as it might be!

The bolded thoroughly confuses me. If you're going to go by how it's "supposed" to look, this is thoroughly incorrect.

If you mean that you prefer your images stretched and nonstandard, then that's another thing, but "enjoying the sight of the BIOS setup screen" or memtest86 just made me chuckle.

 

[ViRGE]

The bolded thoroughly confuses me. If you're going to go by how it's "supposed" to look, this is thoroughly incorrect.

If you mean that you prefer your images stretched and nonstandard, then that's another thing, but "enjoying the sight of the BIOS setup screen" or memtest86 just made me chuckle.

As Itchrelief said, aspect-correct (4:3) scaling is how it's supposed to look. It's not supposed to be stretched out in an aspect-incorrect manner. So what you want is technically incorrect.

With that said, some people like for everything to take up the full space of their monitor, and that's fine (it's not as if it affects the rest of us). Focus on using monitors with scaling controls, and you'll always be able to scale it to widescreen as you like it.

 

[Amitu]

Itchrelief:
> you prefer your images stretched and nonstandard

1. If image = text, yes. I'd like it to occupy my entire screen.
Just curious, what letter(s) on yasasvy's wide screen you find out of shape
or ugly, etc. Distances, proportions, texture, etc.

2. Please link me to the "standard" that would say yasasvy's screen is wrong.
Can be a publication, book (like Mueller, etc.).

3. If I exit yasasvy's screen and continue into DOS or Linux command mode,
what standards would I break? (one can reasonably expect to stay full screen,
I can certify to that). Should I feel guilty?

4. Picture (so to speak) the same "image" shown in 4:3 on the yasasvy's monitor.
Would it be more legible, accurate, pretty, etc.?

5. IF it looks better (or worth the money spent on the monitor),
would it matter whether it's "non-standard" (whatever that standard might be)?

6. If you were to conduct an informal survey, would you expect people to
require yasasvy's image be "correct"? Would they care, know or notice?
---------

I hate to trot out my original, strong argument again:
Two different video modules (and not the latest and the greatest) had no problem
showing the "VGA" text on two different wide-screen monitors in full screen.

- The monitors were just bought. No knowledge of aspect scaling,
"VGA text" standards, nothing.
The only criteria were a reputable company/vendor and not the sidewalk corner
of 7th and W40th.

- The stretching ("scaling") just worked. No futzing with controls (like
auto, size and the like). Nothing. No effort on my part whatsoever.
For some reason, I kinda expected full screen from the BIOS splash,
through Setup, then Post, all the way to Wolfenstein.

 

[VirtualLarry]

- The monitors were just bought. No knowledge of aspect scaling,
"VGA text" standards, nothing.

You should have done some research on whether your display of choice supported aspect-ratio-correct scaling or not.

My KDS 26" LCDs do NOT, and it makes playing Age of Empires difficult, because everything is stretched.

 

[Itchrelief]

Itchrelief:
> you prefer your images stretched and nonstandard

1. If image = text, yes. I'd like it to occupy my entire screen.
Just curious, what letter(s) on yasasvy's wide screen you find out of shape
or ugly, etc. Distances, proportions, texture, etc.

2. Please link me to the "standard" that would say yasasvy's screen is wrong.
Can be a publication, book (like Mueller, etc.).

3. If I exit yasasvy's screen and continue into DOS or Linux command mode,
what standards would I break? (one can reasonably expect to stay full screen,
I can certify to that). Should I feel guilty?

4. Picture (so to speak) the same "image" shown in 4:3 on the yasasvy's monitor.
Would it be more legible, accurate, pretty, etc.?

5. IF it looks better (or worth the money spent on the monitor),
would it matter whether it's "non-standard" (whatever that standard might be)?

6. If you were to conduct an informal survey, would you expect people to
require yasasvy's image be "correct"? Would they care, know or notice?
---------

I hate to trot out my original, strong argument again:
Two different video modules (and not the latest and the greatest) had no problem
showing the "VGA" text on two different wide-screen monitors in full screen.

- The monitors were just bought. No knowledge of aspect scaling,
"VGA text" standards, nothing.
The only criteria were a reputable company/vendor and not the sidewalk corner
of 7th and W40th.

- The stretching ("scaling") just worked. No futzing with controls (like
auto, size and the like). Nothing. No effort on my part whatsoever.
For some reason, I kinda expected full screen from the BIOS splash,
through Setup, then Post, all the way to Wolfenstein.

My problem is with your sense of indignation and your posting as if these companies are wrong and that their output is "dirty" and incorrect. It's just that you prefer it a different, non-standard way.

If you want to view it the way it "should" be, in your words, then it should be 4:3, on a 4:3 monitor. Widescreen monitors were not common (did they even exist at all?) back when DOS was in common usage.

 

[Amitu]

VirtualLarry:

> You should have done some research on whether your display of choice
supported aspect-ratio-correct scaling or not.

I've been bouncing this sentence around, up and down, left and right and
cannot find any connection to what I've been saying all along.

To repeat, the two monitors (NOT TVs - for some reason I've been using
monitors as monitors all my life) have worked just fine in any configuration.
Should I throw them away because I had not done "research" before buying?

Also, IF there's any aspect scaling involved in this discussion at all,
it relates to the now famous "VGA _text_ mode", i.e. _before_ any "game"
is to be played.
FWIW (alas, this disclosure is gonna take the main subject far astray! )
the subject, "offending", card, ASUS EN9500GT, worked OK in NON-VGA _text_ mode,
or, in other words, in what they call "Graphics Mode".
Like Far Cry 2.

----

ItchRelief:

Instead of bothering to look at my questions, let alone replying them you say,

> My problem is with your sense of indignation and your posting as if these
> companies are wrong and that their output is "dirty" and incorrect. It's just
> that you prefer it a different, non-standard way.

What "companies" are you talking about? I mentioned ASUS-video, in the singular.
Surely not Samsung, Chaintech or intel which I had been pleased with them in
this thread.
I still refer you to my previous question #2 (post #21). Show me the
"standard". I want to learn.

> If you want to view it the way it "should" be, in your words, then it should
be 4:3, on a 4:3 monitor.

Yes.

> Widescreen monitors were not common (did they even
exist at all?) back when DOS was in common usage.

Another 100% yes.
Just as an aside, there's so called "Linux" (among other *nixes) that spans
narrow and wide monitor evolution.

As another aside, life is hard anyway, take it easy (avoid trivial problems).
Besides, you can always help a stray soul (and make life a little pleasant
in the process) by answering at least a few of the questions posed in post #21.
Even if just to yourself.

Thanks to both of you for your comments and interest.