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.
 

· 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?
 

· 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.
 

· 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?
 

· 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
 

· 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).
 

· 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...
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #25 ·
wrong, ATI has the issue as well, its just less people have ATI.

the problem is within the Displays EDID/DDC detection, if you can turn that off then you can force the refresh you want. Easiest method, since you use a CRT is to pull pin 15 of the monitor cable. this will force the display to only make use of the refresh modes set in the inf file.
Well, I'll try my parents' ATi card and find out for myself.

It's something nVidia's drivers did after 182.50, so it's obviously the drivers, so it'll be interesting to see why ATi's would have it too. nVidia changed behavior of something in it's post 182.50 drivers that is making it interpolate some (not all) CRTs at lower than their "native" resolution, almost as though they were an LCD. It may be related to EDID (in fact, I do believe that it is part of the equation), but the fact is, it's nVidia's fault/cause. This is a bug, no doubt, but it happened because of the changes they made between the two versions it was introduced in. If ATi hardware/drivers don't exhibit this problem, and nVidia doesn't fix the problem, as much as I don't want to admit it, it will likely drive me away to an ATi GPU.

I did read other people say something about removing a pin for something, but I'd rather not alter/damage my hardware to work around nVidia's or Microsoft's issues. The cable, however, isn't connected to my monitor permanently, though, so I'd be damaging a $10-$15 cable at least. I don't know, this may be something I might try, but only as a last resort.

attempting to even compare xp to vista/windows 7 is retarded, plain and simple. xp is old as dirt now, and needs to be shown the door imho.

since installing vista i rarely touch xp and i will get 7 when released. also unless using latest version of 7, its not wise to claim it has a particular bug unless its also reported in the final release build :/.
Ughm, woah there.

1. This isn't a comparison of operating systems, so get out. I've seen how those debates go here, and I don't want this thread becoming any of that.

2. This is about my experiences, and they are what they are. That's the end of it.

3. I know what behavior (bugs) I am experiencing, and for you to sit there and claim otherwise is ignorant and rude.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #42 ·
Yeah, I'm about one move away from dropping nVidia.

I just removed pin 12 from my monitor cable (good thing it's not built into the monitor itself), and guess what? Not only does the problem still persist, but what's more is it now won't let me go over 1600x1200 by default, and yes, that's after ReForce, after nVidia's control panel, the whole nine yards.

I'm done messing around with it all for something so simple. Really, resolutions and refresh rates shouldn't be this hard to get. nVidia messed up, and big time.

Resolution support for CRTs in Windows 7 with nVidia GPUs is a joke. I can't use what I want, no matter what I try to do, even if I destroy my hardware. It's a joke.

This is now pretty high on my priority list to get this nVidia GPU out of my system, and have no alternative but to use an ATi GPU. This is coming from someone who'd always choose nVidia, all other things being relatively equal (which I think they often are). I honestly don't care about shoddy OpenGL drivers or whatnot. Oh, sure, I know I will care (and maybe a good bit), but nothing can compare to not even handling display modes correctly. It's failing at the basics, here.

This is very annoying.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #44 ·
I'm not understanding how it exists with ATi when you initially said the display drivers were the fault, and not the operating system (which I initially thought). I see only nVidia users complaining about this issue. Not a single one from ATi is complaining about this issue. If ATi has the same bug, I'm inclined to think it's not a coincidence, but rather something in the operating system.

Do you know what exactly is happening, and why? I don't. I honestly think you're just throwing things out too, just like I've been trying things, because none of your fixes have worked. In fact, many have made things worse. I'll admit my confusion (and annoyance), though. You just seem to dance around the issue like the blame is neither here nor there.

I don't care to blame nVidia. I don't want to blame Windows 7. Those aren't my intents. My intents are to have it work. I like nVidia hardware, and this is an operating system I want to stick with. However, one is at fault, and there is a problem in my situation so there's no use dancing around the issue like it's a Pink Elephant. I don't want to, but this is annoying, and if I have to switch to ATi to get it to work (I'll try my parents' GPU first to make sure ATi doesn't have a conveniently similar bug in their drivers...), then I will have to end up at least considering doing so. It's either that, or stay with Windows XP. Yeah, which do you think I'm going to do? For many CRTs (higher end ones), nVidia and Windows 7 is an impossible combination without this, that, and every other headache, workaround, and side effect.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #46 ·
That's not a problem. It's normal for CRTs, and unrelated to video drivers or operating system.

Use your monitor's control panel to scale it to your full screen dimensions, and once you do that, you shouldn't have to again unless it's reset (monitors often told ten or more modes they'll remember, and on lower end/smaller monitors where you'll only use a few resolutions, you should only have to do this once for each).
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #48 ·
Yes, the fact that you have an LCD changes everything. LCDs interpolate at lower resolutions on the hardware level. They're supposed to/it's normal. For CRTs, it's not, and looks terrible. The image is blurred to hell and back, and it looks ridiculous. You really do have to see it to believe it. If you've seen interpolation on an LCD and think it's okay, well, forced interpolation on a CRT looks even worse. It's that bad. It's unacceptable.

In any case, that problem is solved (sort of), but the remaining issue is getting resolutions and frequencies (Hz), ala, display modes, working as they should, but I can't, and this fault is Windows 7's (I think). You see, In Windows 9x, you could disable plug and play entirely if the operating system and/or drivers stopped a mode from working. In Windows XP, there is a checkmark to "hide modes that this monitor cannot display" that you can uncheck to do the same thing, as well as third party software (like ReForce) to force default refresh rates. Well, guess, what? In Windows Vista/7, that checkbox is there, but doesn't work! Read up on it if you don't believe me. How stupid. Why even include the option if it does nothing!? No amount of overriding through ReForce or nVidia's drivers, or even so much as damaging hardware, can overcome this either.

In other words, it's both the drivers and the operating system, one at fault for each problem.

nVidia's drivers are causing interpolation on some CRTs under Windows 7 (but not under Windows XP, or even under Windows Vista).

Windows Vista/7 are lockdown tight on refresh rates/display modes. Apparently, I should have been able to overcome this by removing plug and play at the hardware level, but no, that made it worse.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
Yeah, CRT support (at least for the higher end CRTs, standard ones seem unaffected) in Windows 7 is shoddy. It's a shame.

Are you also getting the second problem I am? Are you getting what appear to be interpolated images at lower than "native" resolutions? Set your monitor to, say, 1280x960 or 1024x768, and bring up your OSD. Does your monitor confirm it's drawing a 1280x960 or 1024x768 image within what's really a 1600x1200 resolution, resulting in a blurry image?
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #54 ·
There it is. I'm not surprised. Actually, I am. I'm surprised it took you as long to say that. I've been waiting for that from you since I started this thread.

If that's all you have to say/do, I'd appreciate if you don't troll the topic.

That's a poor excuse anyway (sadly, you might be partly right on why the situation is as it is). If "CRTS are old" is the real reason this is happening, then that's even more of a shame. It's not like it takes any extreme lengths to support CRTs as Windows XP did...
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #57 ·
I believe Windows XP also touted a slogan of "experience the best of the digital age" on the front box and when installing. Did Windows Vista/7 also drop support for scroll ball mice too? Was support for analog speakers dropped? No? Then CRTs should be just as supported.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #64 ·
I'm using a CRT monitor because it's my preference, and I am going to use what is my preference (isn't it obvious!).

Tell me, what is the purpose of your questioning that? It seems like an instigation to me (i.e., you ask not because you care why I use one, but because you want me to list reasons why I prefer it, in which you'll go and list your own opinions to the contrary, even though it would matter naught due to my own preferences, just to start an argument about it for the sake of it).

As for the problem, I'm trying to live with it for now, and besides the not being able to go over 100Hz (which isn't that big of a deal, but being locked to 75Hz/85Hz was), the only problem is the resolutions and refresh rates supported by default. Also, I lose all resolutions above 1600x1200 with the pin removed, but I have another cable. For the most part, most games are defaulting to 100Hz, but specifically, I like to have 1400x1050 as an intermediate option between 1280x960 and 1600x1200. I have it added through nVidia's control panel, and it works fine for Windows, but I don't want it there. I want it in a few games, but other than that, I can learn to deal with this, I guess.
 

· From Love and Limerence
Joined
·
6,584 Posts
Discussion Starter · #75 ·
No, no real updates.

I'm not on 182.50 anymore. When Windows alerts me of updates, I usually just click to apply them, since it's often just Windows Defender updates. A WDDM driver update slipped past me one time (this was probably about almost a month ago by now), and once I noticed it, I decided to just let it go. The control panel claims it's version 190.38, and there's new 195.xx beta drivers that nVidia is releasing due to the now current latest (191.xx) official ones having known issues with The Sims 3, which I play alot, so I'll grab those when they release.

For now, I'm living with 85Hz (KrossX, it's known that all driver versions after 182.50 can't go higher than 85Hz), although my 1400x1050 resolution is at 100Hz, since I created it while I was still on 182.50, but I had all of my other resolutions set to 100Hz, yet they fell back to 85Hz, sometimes even 75Hz. That's odd. I wonder if it's because I actually created 1400x1050, but I am using 100Hz on a resolution past 182.50. It's just that I can't get it on the others.

As for the the interpolation, it still happens, but I've created custom resolutions for the resolutions I use, and used custom timings (via CVT I think it was?).

In other words, 85Hz is acceptable (but the minimum) for me, and so long as I can override the interpolation happening, I'll have to live with it, I guess. I don't have a choice, maybe save moving to ATi. I'm not holding my breath for a fix, though I'd like to be surprised, but I can't stay on 182.50 forever (new games, and once I upgrade, won't allow that).
 
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