Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!mips!ptimtc!nntp-server.caltech.edu!antonyc
From: antonyc@nntp-server.caltech.edu (Antony Chan)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
Subject: Re: slow-moving "wave" on Seiko 1440 in 800x600 mode
Message-ID: <1991Jun10.204055.20924@nntp-server.caltech.edu>
Date: 10 Jun 91 20:40:55 GMT
References: <1991Jun9.035241.135308@ramona.Cary.NC.US>
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena
Lines: 25

andrew@ramona.Cary.NC.US (Andrew Ernest) writes:

>Bonus question:  is it normal for the screen image to be narrower in
>800x600 graphics mode than it is in 640x480 or 1024x768 mode?  The
>latter two have the same width.  I compensate when in 800x600 mode by
>adjusting the horizontal width control.  Since some monitors (like NEC)
>have memory for holding dimension settings, I'm hoping this is normal
>for multisync monitors.

i'm not sure what causes the bright line, but i think i can guess
what the answer to the other question is.  last i heard, 800x600
didnt have a standard, but 640x480 and 1024x768 did.  the result is
that different cards will have different sync frequencies.  i
determined this one day when a friend and i were swapping video cards
(i have a swan and he has a trident)  he has a tri-sync, and i have
a multi-sync, and the 640x480 and 1024x768 required no adjustment
but 800x600 required us to fiddle with the width controls.  on his
monitor, i believe, we were unable to get the correct width- the
frequency was just too far off.  on mine, i think, the adjustment
also was right at the end when the right size was achieved.
fortunately, my card works well with my monitor, and his is fine 
with his.  anyway, we looked at the specs for his card, my card, and
his monitor. sure enough, our 800x600 frequencies were much different,
his monitor almost matched his card perfectly, and 640x480 and
1024x768 modes had nearly identical freqencies.