Next Generation Emulation banner
1 - 20 of 89 Posts

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I'm not sure what else to title this. I have two questions about Windows 7 and resolution.

The first is concerning some odd behavior I just witnessed.

Now that I've updated to the RC of Windows 7, I've started installing alot of my stuff on it with the intention of making it my main OS (ala, I'll slowly use Windows XP less and less until Windows 7 officially releases). In installing alot of my games and emulators, and trying a few, I've noticed a very startling thing. Lower resolutions look like garbage! It is not this way in Windows XP, so I assume this is some "feature" of Windows 7 (and perhaps Vista, I'd wager), but this feature can go away. I'm not sure how to describe it really, but it looks as though an LCD would looking outside it's native resolution, as though it's interpolating or something, which is strange. Overall, the image is very blurry. I can tell it's not physically running as low as it claims (ala, 640x480 looks more like a lower resolution being stretched to fit a higher one (how much higher, I don't know), which is, as I said, akin to interpolating/stretching. Any resolution below 1600x1200 does this (besides 1400x1050, but I had to manually add that in to use it, which may be why). It does this on the desktop, in games, emulators, you name it, at lower resolutions than what Windows 7 says is my monitors native, it seems to interpolate (edit: okay, I just tried Crysis, and at least it seems to be excluded from exhibiting this behavior). This is not an LCD, so it shouldn't be doing that. Google has been no help (but since I don't know what this feature/process is called, I have no idea what I'm looking for). I don't think it'd matter, but I'm using the nVidia WDDM 1.1 drivers for Windows 7 (whatever xxx.xx official version that's supposed to equal).

Basically, my question(s) are this.

1. What is this crap?

2. How do I stop this crap?

I hate to say it, but this would be a deal breaker for me. I'm not going to use an operating system if it means my display is going to look like garbage half the time.

My second question is, I still haven't figured out how to get higher than 85Hz from my monitor under Windows 7. I'm pretty sure this is because the driver installed is a "generic PnP" driver, but Windows identified my monitor right (as an IBM P275), and the drivers for my monitor will not install (Windows determines the generic ones to be better). ReForce doesn't work under Windows 7/Vista, and every time I try creating a custom resolution via the nVidia control panel, the test fails if it's higher than 85Hz (it always worked in Windows XP). Again, this is half a deal breaker (though not as much as the first). I ideally like running 100Hz, or more, where I can. I only go below for 2048x1536, which I'm using far less than half the time.
 

· The one and only
Joined
·
4,074 Posts
Still using CRT's? yikes!
The latest nvidia driver is 190.15, you need a modded inf to use it though, get it at laptopvideo2go. Try those first, its MOST LIKELY nvidia drivers, as they're still a slight bit immature.
I would suggest just getting a 120hz LCD. Theyre a bit pricey (around $300 for the viewsonic, the cheapest one out right now) I assume thats the only reason you still have a CRT, the refresh rate?
I still have a problem with nvidia detecting my monitor to run at 60hz, it instead runs it at 59hz which is kinda annoying.

Edit:
Oh i forgot to add, The RC version is a couple of months old. Im running the latest version out right now, 7264, its around on the internet, i recommend it.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I'm not going to worry about constantly having the latest version. I'm pretty sure that's not a variable in this. I first tried the Beta, then the RC since it expired, and that'll last me until the official release. I plan to use this time to start migrating from Windows XP to Windows 7 (and in that process, I ran into this problem).

As for a new monitor, no. Not only am I not getting into why (although my post above stating I need resolution flexibility was one already stated reason), but that is not an actual solution to my problem.

I know the refresh rate is capped due to monitor drivers (and possibly nVidia drivers?).

The first thing, though, is some new odd behavior that Windows 7 (or Vista) seems to have introduced that annoys me greatly. I assume it looks good on LCDs when running your monitor below it's native resolution (or would it, since that'd be interpolating/stretching masking and/or replacing interpolating/stretching...), but on CRTs, it just makes it look worse, like an LCD that is interpolating. Is this some sort of option I can disable? Is it something the display drivers themselves do under Windows 7/Vista? Is it the operating system?
 

· クロスエクス
Joined
·
4,890 Posts
I've been using 7RC since it was released, and never got such issue.

I use a CRT monitor, I've yet to see an LCD screen that makes me want to replace it.
(alright, I've seen one or two but the price made me run away... fast)

It doesn't go below 640x480, but it looks as it should. And the monitor reports the
resolution change properly, therefore, it's not "fake".

I use a series 7 GeForce, so maybe there's something introduced on the drivers for the Series 8+ ?
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
I get the feeling this is some sort of new "feature" that's supposed to make lower resolutions (than native, or lower period) look better (namely, for LCDs), but I don't like it since it makes things more blurry. It's almost as though it's taking lower resolutions, and internally stretching/upscaling them up to the native resolution (in my case, 1600x1200). Why it is doing this, I don't know. I'm almost positive that's exactly what's happening. I mean, imagine 640x480 being internally drawn, but physically displayed using 1600x1200 pixels, with what appears to be some sort of filter over it. It's ugly! I'm not sure if it's the drivers, operating system, or the match of the two (Windows XP did not ever do this though, so I'm guessing Windows 7 is playing a part, even if it's not totally the actual reason for this happening).

BigIg, The lower resolutions work. They just look a little blurry and odd. I'm doubting you'll notice this on an LCD as much, if that's what you're using.

I guess I'll mess around with the drivers (maybe install different versions) and try creating duplicate custom resolutions of the default ones (what a lames workaround). This behavior doesn't happen on my custom created 1400x1050, so it's worth a shot.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
13,287 Posts
Nope, I have a CRT and don't notice any blurring at 800x600 or 640x480.'

Does you monitor have a thing in the menu in your monitor that allows you to see what the resolution you monitor currently is using?
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #8 ·
It's almost as though it's taking lower resolutions, and internally stretching/upscaling them up to the native resolution (in my case, 1600x1200). Why it is doing this, I don't know. I'm almost positive that's exactly what's happening.
Does you monitor have a thing in the menu in your monitor that allows you to see what the resolution you monitor currently is using?
Why did I never bother to check it.

In any case, this was right.

I set it to 1280x960, and my monitor says it doing [email protected] What a joke!

There's also this.



The auto timing always kept both resolutions the same for me in Windows XP. It appears it works differently by default in Windows 7 (at least in my circumstances). I set a custom resolution for 1280x960 using the GTF timing rather than the auto timing, and now when I select the 1280x960 option in Windows, it looks like it should. I hope this works in games this way too, because if so, this'll have to be my workaround. It appears the drivers are the main fault, but why does it act this way in Windows 7 for me while it didn't do this in Windows XP? My guess is the monitor drivers. It's using the limitations of the generic PnP driver, but it still identifies it. Since it associates 1600x1200 as the native, my guess is the video drivers upscale any lower resolution to that native (as though this were an LCD). I wish I could contact someone else with this monitor and see if they get that under Windows 7/Vista, or see if any other CRTs do this. It's all odd. That's all I have to say.

I guess that's one down (sort of).

I still can't get more than 85Hz at all. Can anyone else using the default Windows 7 monitor drivers?
 

· The Hunter
Joined
·
17,202 Posts
Tried ClearType or anything of the likes?
 

· Banned
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
its the display drivers, not windows 7.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 · (Edited)
Tried ClearType or anything of the likes?
I was waiting for that to come up with the "blurry" comment. That's not related at all to what is happening.
its the display drivers, not windows 7.
Yeah, I've figured as much, but then why did this never happen in Windows XP?

By the way, I found some others experiencing this.

How to REALLY set lower screen resolution? - Windows 7 Forums

Running Counter Strike 640x480 on a CRT Monitor - Windows 7 Forums
 

· Banned
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
Still using CRT's? yikes!
The latest nvidia driver is 190.15, you need a modded inf to use it though, get it at laptopvideo2go. Try those first, its MOST LIKELY nvidia drivers, as they're still a slight bit immature.
I would suggest just getting a 120hz LCD. Theyre a bit pricey (around $300 for the viewsonic, the cheapest one out right now) I assume thats the only reason you still have a CRT, the refresh rate?
I still have a problem with nvidia detecting my monitor to run at 60hz, it instead runs it at 59hz which is kinda annoying.

Edit:
Oh i forgot to add, The RC version is a couple of months old. Im running the latest version out right now, 7264, its around on the internet, i recommend it.

59hz = 60hz, i don't get where people are having issues with this, but they need to stfu and get it into their heads.

the herz value is not a set rate, infact while my monitors info says its running at 60, its actually running at 59.950 according to the advanced monitor timing.

anyway, if its that big of a deal, just create a custom display timing. its not like its difficult.

Zedeck, create an actual monitor inf, you can do it with Rivatuner.

relying on DDC and EDID to get CRT display modes when digital displays are the future is asking for trouble.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
So let me get this all straight. Windows 7 (or it's default monitor driver) is applying a "recommended resolution" to some, but not all, CRTs, and basically the video drivers are noticing this, and thinking that that value is the monitor's native resolution, so when it is set to run lower, the driver is performing scaling on these CRTs as though they are LCDs?

Squall-Leonhart, it's been a while since I've used RivaTuner. Is it pretty straightforward to do what you're saying? I'm willing to do it, since making actual drivers for the monitor (which is just an .inf file) will likely let me run at a higher refresh rate too, taking out both problems with one solution.

I have the IBM drivers that worked in Windows XP, but they wouldn't work in Windows 7 (Windows 7 insists it's own generic PnP drivers are a better match). It's also odd that Windows 7 insists on not letting me force a higher refresh rate (which I could do in Windows XP even with the generic PnP drivers).
 

· Banned
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
Image uploading. Refresh page to view
 

· Banned
Joined
·
35,081 Posts
I'll give it a try. Looks simple enough.

GeForce 6150SE IGP? What happened to your FX5950 Ultra or whatever?

thats in my mums system lol, my card though.

this system is pci-e. and other then games, a hell of a lot faster :p

its my temp system till the new one gets here.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #20 · (Edited)
Well, I have to dropkick this thread back up to the top again. It looks like I'll also be dropkicking either Windows 7 or the future nVidia GPU from my PC.

I installed actual nVidia drivers.

I created custom monitor drivers. They couldn't be installed via the "install" command, and via a search, Windows 7 still thinks it's default drivers were better, so I forced the custom created inf file to install, and with success. It is now saying I have the monitor I do instead of a "Generic PnP Monitor".

What wasn't successful was that the problem remains. It's still doing the same crap it was with resolutions, and it's still locked at 85Hz. This is unacceptable.

What's more odd is that the nVidia's custom resolution test now tests my attempts at 100Hz, and then succeeds and says 100Hz is working, but the OSD of my monitor shows it's still doing [email protected] (the tested resolution was [email protected]), and then the custom resolution will be added to a list claiming 85Hz, despite it just saying it was 100Hz...

Wow, what a mess up. Either Microsoft or nVidia needs to fix this, and I'm inclined to believe it's the latter at this point. nVidia, this isn't an LCD, and it shouldn't be interpolating like one at lower resolutions than it's "native". I gave it the monitor drivers it needs, so that about rules out the OS (unless it's still not playing nice since it didn't even like those drivers over it's default restrictive ones). I may test my parents' Radeon on my PC if I can to be sure which it is, and if it does not exhibit this behavior, and I can confirm it's nVidia's fault (all of the reports of this so far came from nVidia users too...), then it won't be Windows 7 I dropkick from this PC, but the next GeForce card I have planned to purchase.

Edit: I've read around more...

Google

...and sure enough, everyone having this issue has an nVidia GPU. Someone recommended that the 182.50 drivers are free of this problem, and it showed up in the 185/186 drivers. Someone else having the problem reverted and it was fixed. I'm going to try this and report back. If it works, it'll work in the meantime, but a newer GPU will obviously need a newer driver set...

Since everyone having the issue has an nVidia GPU, this confirms it's nVidia and not Windows 7 (odd how Windows Vista is free of the problem though), and the latest 190.xx drivers still have this issue. nVidia probably isn't fixing it, and I know that. Considering the thread above this one reads about ATi drivers increasing performance, and since the load they used to dump on the CPU is gone (was the deal breaker back then), I'm back to leaning towards a Radeon for my next card. You know, my motherboard supports Crossfire and not SLi anyway, and I've always wanted to toy with a multi-card setup.

Edit 2: I installed the 182.50 drivers, and both problems are gone! Well, almost. I still can't go over 100Hz, but I never really did anyway. This still locks out 120Hz at 1280x960, and 150Hz at 1024x768, but those I can live without. I needed my 100Hz for every other resolution though.

It looks like you were right Squall-Leonhart. I initially thought this was Windows 7's doing. I figured nVidia would be on top of it's game. They usually, no, they always are, on their drivers. Now I'll sit back and see if they ever fix this, but I'm not counting on it...
 
1 - 20 of 89 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top