Will these settings hurt my monitor and/or TV?

[dan_esf_fanatic]

Well I decided to switch to 1152x864 resolution today, even tho I have a 17'' monitor. Gotta say it looks a lot better than 1024x768, but I heard that it can strain your monitor or something. I'm not that good with hardware, so I wasn't able to confirm this myself. So now it looks like this:

The secondary screen (number 2) is my TV. I had to put it to the same resolution since when I watch, say, a movie on my TV Display, part of the screen is missing if the resolutions are different. Will this cause any damage to the monitor and/or the TV?

 

[Almighty_Gir]

it depends, what is the native resolution of your monitor? there are applications (google is your friend) that will allow your graphics card to find that resolution for you.

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

It's 1024x768, but it's a bit too small for me. But if it's the only safe one, I'll switch back to it.

 

[MC]

It's 1024x768, but it's a bit too small for me. But if it's the only safe one, I'll switch back to it.

Can your monitor go up to 1280x1024? If it can then try setting it to that.

 

[elNarr]

Usually all of the 17"-tft monitor's native resolution is 1280x1024.

If it can't support it , just use 1152x864.

 

[frsrblch]

Aren't bad settings usually disabled by default so you can't select them?

 

[PiXel]

ia lways used the highest ones <_<"

used on my 17' one back then the 1280x1024 size....

 

[vinay87]

Aren't bad settings usually disabled by default so you can't select them?

Well there is some way to renable them, but that will only result in a BSOD.


Hmm I use 1024x768 on a 15 inch monitor, suits me just fine.

 

[Smith]

Well there is some way to renable them, but that will only result in a BSOD.

No. Just uncheck the "hide modes that this monitor cannot display" and viola. If you select something the monitor doesn't like, it'll just blank out (or get an "out of range error") and in ten seconds Windows will revert back to the original setting.

Basically, if the monitor is on at the resolution you've selected, then more than likely it'll be fine. (Refresh rates + CRT monitors are a different story)

Edit: btw, the ESF forum seems to load so much faster now that we've switched to filefront. This definitely was a good move.

 

[vinay87]

Wait, the forums were shifted to filefront? It thought it was just the site.
Oh silly me.... They both share one domain don't they?
I was wondering why it was all much faster now. Oktagone's gone huh?


@ Smith. Yeah I tried setting my monitor to some higher setting and I get that "Sync out of range message." Thank heavens for that 14 second wait box.

 

[frsrblch]

Edit: btw, the ESF forum seems to load so much faster now that we've switched to filefront. This definitely was a good move.

I could've told you FileFront was win a long time ago...

 

[dan_esf_fanatic]

Whoa, totally forgot about this thread.

Basically, if the monitor is on at the resolution you've selected, then more than likely it'll be fine. (Refresh rates + CRT monitors are a different story)

I have a CRT monitor......and using 75 Hz refresh rate..

Can your monitor go up to 1280x1024? If it can then try setting it to that.

I did, and it's on at that setting, but it's too damn big for my liking. Does this mean that it'll run normally on 1152x864?

 

[elNarr]

If it's Crt, it can run the resolution that is biggest on the list, but it might fry it up.

Long story short ; Yes, you can.

 

[Smith]

I was wondering why it was all much faster now. Oktagone's gone huh?

I was being sarcastic. The forums are very sluggish/unresponsive.

I did, and it's on at that setting, but it's too damn big for my liking. Does this mean that it'll run normally on 1152x864?

If you're only showing modes your monitor can display, then it'll be perfectly fine (aka no frying) with any setting you're allowed to select.

 

[Almighty_Gir]

however, as i mentioned. native resolutions are better, because they show pixels on a true 1:1 ratio. a lot of crt monitors are capable of displaying above the native resolution, as well as below. but you won't get a true reprisentation of that resolution.

wikipedia explains it better than me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

 

[frsrblch]

I was being sarcastic. The forums are very sluggish/unresponsive.

Seriously? I haven't actually noticed a thing, but I am, however, biased in favour of FileFront, and I could go on at length about how much ass they kick.

 

[Smith]

however, as i mentioned. native resolutions are better, because they show pixels on a true 1:1 ratio. a lot of crt monitors are capable of displaying above the native resolution, as well as below. but you won't get a true reprisentation of that resolution.

wikipedia explains it better than me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_resolution

CRT monitors don't have a native resolution. They just have a maximum.

 

[vinay87]

I was being sarcastic. The forums are very sluggish/unresponsive.

Really, it does seem a bit faster. To me atleast. oh well.

 

[frsrblch]

My apologies, but I'm just going to jack this thread for a second...

Is a CRT or LCD monitor better for gaming? I was under the impression that LCDs were better, but this whole native resolution thing has me wondering...

 

[elNarr]

CRT is better for gaming, but low response timed Tft's are good too, but they're only suitable when playing in native resolution.