On 17 Mar 98 at 21:12, Stephen J. Link wrote:

> I had a problem similar to this.  The problem turned out to be the monitor.
> I had a 14" clone monitor with a 1 meg PCI video and couldn't get 800x600
> but got 1024x768 okay.  I switched to an IBM 15" monitor and had the same
> problems.  I now have an NEC Multisync 15" with the same video card and am
> running fine at 800x600x1M.

  I have two IBM PS/2 monitors around.  The 12" is not
variable-frequency; it will do more than 16 colours, but only ever at
640x480.  [It is a VGA and not SVGA.]
  The 15" monitor was the top of the PS/2 display line when
introduced in 1987.  It does 1024x786 just fine -- probably using
interlacing to keep the frequency down where it can handle it.  It
does not do 800x600 well; I believe it's usable, but distorted.


>> I can't get the beast to give me 640 X 480 resolution and at least
>> 256 colors. What I've done so far: 1) changed monitors (both
>> Unknown, but both capable of supporting what I'm looking for on
>> other computers 2) changed video cards (both have at least 1MB of
>> RAM) 3) In Display Properties/Settings tab, I am allowed to
>> choose any resolution up to 800 X 600 with up to 24 bit color.

  Frequency limitations can determine what resolutions are usable on
a given monitor.  But with VGA's analog colour signals, the monitor
shouldn't care what colour depth the video card is set for.

  All VGA/SVGA cards should support 640x480x16-colour mode, which is
stock VGA; in fact, just about any VGA/SVGA driver should work in
that mode on any card.
  Once you try to go into modes with more resolution OR MORE COLOURS,
you may no longer be dealing with standard hardware interfaces.
[There *are* standards, but they didn't emerge until after there were
boards....]  So it can be important that the driver installed matches
the video hardware if you want to go beyond 640x480x16.

David G