Options

Strange monitor problem (RESOLVED)

binarysoulbinarysoul Member Posts: 993
I have a Samsung SynchMaster 753s monitor. When I scroll, the page is distored as below:

Skreen--0009.JPG

I've reinstalled the video card driver and changed the refresh rate from 60khz to 75, but it remains the same. Any ideas? It just drives me nuts icon_twisted.gificon_twisted.gif

Comments

  • Options
    whistlerwhistler Member Posts: 108
    binarysoul wrote:
    I have a Samsung SynchMaster 753s monitor. When I scroll, the page is distored as below:

    Skreen--0009.JPG

    I've reinstalled the video card driver and changed the refresh rate from 60khz to 75, but it remains the same. Any ideas? It just drives me nuts icon_twisted.gificon_twisted.gif

    Decrease the hardware acceleration.

    What card do you have?
  • Options
    binarysoulbinarysoul Member Posts: 993
    The card is "Intel 82845G Graphics Controller".

    Here is the link:

    http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel845g/sb/cs-009081.htm

    In XP, Where can I change hardware acceleration?
  • Options
    binarysoulbinarysoul Member Posts: 993
    Turns out it was memory-related. The PC had 128mb of ram and I added 256 more and problem disappeared.

    Was that expected?
  • Options
    JDMurrayJDMurray Admin Posts: 13,034 Admin
    binarysoul wrote:
    Turns out it was memory-related. The PC had 128mb of ram and I added 256 more and problem disappeared.

    Was that expected?
    Oh sure. WinXP was so heavily lagged by it needing to constantly swap to disk that it could not properly render the graphical output. If you had cmd.exe as your shell WinXP would have worked just fine.
  • Options
    dynamikdynamik Banned Posts: 12,312 ■■■■■■■■■□
    Yea. You need to remember that integrated/on-board video doesn't have it's own memory like add-on cards. That graphics adapter was taking up to 32mb of your 128mb. That would make things a bit tight icon_eek.gif

    Check this out: http://www.intel.com/support/graphics/intel845g/sb/cs-009088.htm
  • Options
    JDMurrayJDMurray Admin Posts: 13,034 Admin
    I'm actually very surprised that WinXP was usable with only 128MB. I would assume that once you started a couple of apps it would be so sluggish as to be aggravating to use. I know the minimum RAM for XP is 64MB, but that's just ridiculous, even when it was released back in 2001.
Sign In or Register to comment.