Correcting Monitor Resolution in Windows 7

Quick question....

I'm trying to fix a computer with Windows 7 (Pro) and an nVidia 8600GT (EVGA) card. Trying to help a friend and sample Windows 7 in the process!

Native resolution out the door is only 1280x1024, but the monitor is a 1680x1050 screen (Samsung Syncmaster 205BW). I downloaded the latest nVidia drivers (195.X) but that didn't seem to solve the problem. I've done the uninstall/reinstall a couple of times now, even rolling back the drivers to 190.X...and no luck.

First observation -- When Windows installs a monitor driver on its own, it picks one for a Samsung 740BX....which is an old 17inch monitor that only goes out to 1280x1024!! I was able to uninstall that driver and download the file for the Samsung 205BW....but is it Win 7 compatible? Not sure it matters. Regardless, nothing changes with respect to the resolution options.

Next try -- with none of this working, I decided to dink around in nVidia's "custom resolution" tab. Every time I tried to enter 1680x1050, I kept getting "test failure"! Tried all sorts of combinations here, and always the same "test failure". I was able to get it to take 1440x900...but it doesn't look anything close to right! Tweaking with the 'timing' settings manually is something I don't know much about....and hoping I don't have to go there!

Would the fact that he's using analog cables with the DVI connectors make any difference? [When he was previously using this card running XP, the old RGB cables actually worked just fine, while the DVI ones gave us some trouble. Never sure why at the time though!]

I remember this being a "small issue" back when I had a box running XP Pro and an older nVidia card. It defaulted to 1280x1024. I think all I did then was update the nVidia driver, and then configure from the Control Panel. And then it recognized the 1680x1050 setting. Took at most a few minutes.

But I've been rooting around nVidia boards and trouble shooting for about an hour....and I can't find anything that seems to work.

I know some of you are up on monitor stuff much more than myself, who generally is just a minimalist here! Plus 98% of my time is spent in OSX and Linux...and I've never had these kinds of issues. Would be thankful for any input of anything else you can think of to try.

Thoughts?

Quick update....

I booted into an Ubuntu Live distro....and Ubuntu is picking it up as a 17-inch Samsung monitor (when, in fact, it is a 20-inch).

Any other options worth giving a shot? Editing an INF file is not a road I really want to travel down!!

quick answer messages 70, 71, & 73 on this forum page https://photography-on-the.net …hread.php?t=793​275&page=5

If ubuntu is giving you errors, it's not the OS, it's the monitor.

basroil wrote in post #9325912
If ubuntu is giving you errors, it's not the OS, it's the monitor.

That's what I figured! Is getting false monitor recognition a common phenomena?

Windows didn't have it listed in their Windows 7 Compatibility Center, whereas they did have it for Vista. I don't put a lot of stock in that, frankly!

I did put the "old" XP Pro hard drive back in, booted it up, and 1680x1050 mode works fine. That's what threw me for a loop -- why can I get it in XP Pro and not in Windows 7? I'm still inclined to think first that it's a monitor issue, but this at least makes me wonder!

I got it working right @ 1440x900...so it's usable now. But unless I can get it back to 1680x1050, I think he'll probably just upgrade to something that will get him out to 1920, which I suggested he do anyhow!

BeritOlam wrote in post #9326809
That's what I figured! Is getting false monitor recognition a common phenomena?

Windows didn't have it listed in their Windows 7 Compatibility Center, whereas they did have it for Vista. I don't put a lot of stock in that, frankly!

I did put the "old" XP Pro hard drive back in, booted it up, and 1680x1050 mode works fine. That's what threw me for a loop -- why can I get it in XP Pro and not in Windows 7? I'm still inclined to think first that it's a monitor issue, but this at least makes me wonder!

I got it working right @ 1440x900...so it's usable now. But unless I can get it back to 1680x1050, I think he'll probably just upgrade to something that will get him out to 1920, which I suggested he do anyhow!

Try disabling EDID. ATI cards can do this (now requires some extra work because ATI decided that pretty screens were better than useful ones), not sure about newer Nvidia cards or drivers, only have vista on my only nvidia driven comp.

basroil wrote in post #9328148
Try disabling EDID. ATI cards can do this (now requires some extra work because ATI decided that pretty screens were better than useful ones), not sure about newer Nvidia cards or drivers, only have vista on my only nvidia driven comp.

Hoping not to go the EDID route right now. Sounds like ATI makes it easier to do than Nvidia....and I don't have hours to 'dink' around to get it to work.

It sounds like a number of people with Win7 are having problems with 1680x1050 resolution not working properly in some setups. Found a few other guys with similar-type problems. Not sure all of them are for the same reason.

I still would have thought that you should be able to "force" nVidia to use 1680x1050 resolution without ever messing with the EDID stuff.

Can you think of any reason why it would configure fine in XP Pro and not work in Win 7?

BeritOlam wrote in post #9326809
That's what I figured! Is getting false monitor recognition a common phenomena?

Windows didn't have it listed in their Windows 7 Compatibility Center, whereas they did have it for Vista. I don't put a lot of stock in that, frankly!

I did put the "old" XP Pro hard drive back in, booted it up, and 1680x1050 mode works fine. That's what threw me for a loop -- why can I get it in XP Pro and not in Windows 7? I'm still inclined to think first that it's a monitor issue, but this at least makes me wonder!

I got it working right @ 1440x900...so it's usable now. But unless I can get it back to 1680x1050, I think he'll probably just upgrade to something that will get him out to 1920, which I suggested he do anyhow!

I didn't 'thoroughly' read your post so maybe you mentioned it... But, did you use the drivers supplied by the monitor manufacturer? I have this problem from time to time, particularly with Dell screen's at 1050 and the only thing that would fix it was to use the supplied monitor driver disk. You can usually find these drivers on the manufacturers website, but often times companies like Dell will use different screens and rebrand them which makes it a pain because they almost never place them on the computer's help/driver pages - but sometimes on the monitor page.

BeritOlam wrote in post #9332954
Hoping not to go the EDID route right now. Sounds like ATI makes it easier to do than Nvidia....and I don't have hours to 'dink' around to get it to work.

It sounds like a number of people with Win7 are having problems with 1680x1050 resolution not working properly in some setups. Found a few other guys with similar-type problems. Not sure all of them are for the same reason.

I still would have thought that you should be able to "force" nVidia to use 1680x1050 resolution without ever messing with the EDID stuff.

Can you think of any reason why it would configure fine in XP Pro and not work in Win 7?

You can set a custom resolution (with non-supported options enabled), but if it returns an error, like it did for you (or for my laptop if I try to use 1920x1200), then it won't work. As Maxxum said, most monitors come with a "driver" disk, which overrides the default one your computer uses. If not, go to dell, download their driver for a similar monitor. Then force update the driver to that. Hopefully, that will take care of it, but there's also a very real chance it'll really screw up your computer if it doesn't work.

MaxxuM wrote in post #9333118
I didn't 'thoroughly' read your post so maybe you mentioned it... But, did you use the drivers supplied by the monitor manufacturer? I have this problem from time to time, particularly with Dell screen's at 1050 and the only thing that would fix it was to use the supplied monitor driver disk. You can usually find these drivers on the manufacturers website, but often times companies like Dell will use different screens and rebrand them which makes it a pain because they almost never place them on the computer's help/driver pages - but sometimes on the monitor page.

Yup, that was one of the first things I did!

I had a similar issue a few years ago when I still was running XP Pro in a home box. It wasn't until I downloaded the monitor drivers that I could get the thing to configure....but it cleared right up once I did so.

But no go so far with his Samsung monitor. Would it matter that the drivers haven't been updated since March '07? I would a thunk that a monitor.sys file is pretty standard. If it were "new hardware/old software", I'd expect problems....but I would have thought that Windows 7 would be smart enough to figure out what's going on.

Then again, Ubuntu is just about second to none in its ability to auto-configure....which is why I had immediate thoughts similar to Basroil above.

BeritOlam wrote in post #9334233
Then again, Ubuntu is just about second to none in its ability to auto-configure....which is why I had immediate thoughts similar to Basroil above.

Windows 7 may be the only OS I know of that might actually beat ubuntu in terms of driver base and ability to place the right driver where it belongs. When I installed 7 on my HTPC, everything was automatically recognized and the right driver installed. Some drivers were a bit old, especially graphics drivers, but they were the right ones.

basroil wrote in post #9336032
Windows 7 may be the only OS I know of that might actually beat ubuntu in terms of driver base and ability to place the right driver where it belongs. When I installed 7 on my HTPC, everything was automatically recognized and the right driver installed. Some drivers were a bit old, especially graphics drivers, but they were the right ones.

Ditto, although I have never used Ubuntu. I've done 3 Windows 7 installs and have yet to need to load a driver.

Windows has like 88% of the market and two generations of OS drivers to work with - it would be fairly ignorant of them not to have the best driver support. That we are even talking about this is a testament of how badly Vista damaged MS reputation with its shotty early driver support.

MaxxuM wrote in post #9339023
Windows has like 88% of the market and two generations of OS drivers to work with - it would be fairly ignorant of them not to have the best driver support. That we are even talking about this is a testament of how badly Vista damaged MS reputation with its shotty early driver support.

All "Windows Woes" aside....

I took another stab at this computer with Win7 this evening and am still baffled by things. I was able to download some monitor configure program -- it was recommended by a couple of forums....but the name escapes me at the moment -- and that was able to read the monitor as being native 1680x1050!

I still would have thought that even if the EDID was wrong, I should still be able to 'force' things into 1680x1050. Any one else have ideas why it will let me 'force' into 1440x900....but not 1680?

BeritOlam wrote in post #9341856
All "Windows Woes" aside....

I took another stab at this computer with Win7 this evening and am still baffled by things. I was able to download some monitor configure program -- it was recommended by a couple of forums....but the name escapes me at the moment -- and that was able to read the monitor as being native 1680x1050!

I still would have thought that even if the EDID was wrong, I should still be able to 'force' things into 1680x1050. Any one else have ideas why it will let me 'force' into 1440x900....but not 1680?

Because the monitor might run 1650x1050 rather than 1680x1050. There's a few monitors that have that retarded looking difference as well, though i think it's a controller/software thing rather than panel.

Could also be a legacy limit of the graphics card.