Accurate screen resolution vs web

I have an aluminum 23in ACD (4years old) on a G5. Display Preferences have resolution set to 1920x1200 which looks correct and seems optimum. When I make a graphic that is 5inches x 3.5 inches in photoslop and view it at 100%, it is about 30% smaller than it accurately should be. In other words, if I take an actual ruler and measure on the screen, my 5inch wide graphic is 3.5inches. Why is this? And what does the web see that size as?
If I make the item 5x3.5 at 96ppi, its screen size is pretty much accurate, but I am told that it should be made at 72ppi.
Somewhat confused here.
Any comments appreciated, other than the usual "you ignorant...!!$#%..."
Message was edited by: Eric Gordon1

I'd say the 72 ppi standard is pretty much out the window at this time in history with respect to the web. When the original Macintosh came out with its 9-inch diagonal, black and white screen with 512 x 384 resolution, Apple went through pains to make sure it conformed to the typesetting standard of 72 ppi by making the screen 72 pixels/dots per inch. Thus WYSIWYG was born on the Mac whereby printed output on the 72 ppi dot matrix printer came out at the same size as elements on the screen. Everything matched on this original system.
Apple held onto 72 dpi screens for a while but the wheels started to come off the cart with the advent of notebook screens where there was a desire to have more on-screen pixels but the screen size was limited by cost and processing limits of the day. So 80 dpi soon showed up on Apple screens and up and up it has crept to the point where we now have a 17" MacBook Pro screen with 1920 x 1200 resolution at 133 dpi, nearly double the original 72 dpi.
Desktop publishing software applications have strongly adhered to the 72 ppi standard that is a part of their DNA which isn't going to go away. But the fact of the matter is that with screen resolution being all over the map, and resolution independence of displayed computer output still an unfulfilled promise, you can never hope your audience of viewers will all see what you have intended with your webpage at exactly the same size.
At this point in time, I'd say 96ppi is much closer to the average computer monitor display than 72ppi, so you are probably better off standardizing on that for web content meant primarily to be viewed on screen.

Similar Messages

  • Get screen resolution in WebDynpro ABAP

    Hi,
    is there is a possibility to get the current screen resolution of the frontend in a Web Dynpro ABAP application?
    I found the following class and method: cl_gui_frontend_services => registry_get_value.
    I found the Screen Resolution in WIN XP at:
    SYSTEM\CurrentControlSet\Hardware Profiles\Current\System\CurrentControlSet\Control\VIDEO\{23A77BF7-ED96-40EC-AF06-9B1F4867732A}\0000\.....
    As expected, this method only works in the SAP GUI and not in Internet Explorer. In IE it triggers the exception CNTL_ERROR.
    Is there another solution?
    Regards.

    I guess the root question is why do you need the screen resolution?  Web Dynpro isn't design to be screen resolution specific. That is why it is flow layout based and not pixel coordinate based. Generally the use of % based width/height parameters will allow the content to adjust to the screen size.  Even if you had the screen size, what you reall need is the browser window size.  This can change even the user resizes the browser. Even if you could get this value via ACFExecute or something like that, you wouldn't have an event to let you know when the browser was resized.

  • I need  a symbol to remain center screen on my web page no matter the screen resolution settings.

    Im trying to create an animation with functions inside a symbol. I need the symbol settings to remain seprate from the other settings of other items on the page such as "stage" and "background image" which are set to %  height.width,longitude,latitude . It is important that the symbol stays in the center of the screen. I also need this symbol to always remain in the center of the screen no matter screen resolution settings  that are likly range from 1360x768 to 1920x1080.

    Hi there,
    I solved the problem. but by solving the problem with centering the symbol on the stage I created another one, a very strange problem.
    Firstly the solving of centering problem:
    I left all settings of the symbol by px, (means no responsive layout), set 0 px o for position, and wrote a css which then centered the symbol on the stage,
    sym.$("products").css({
       margin : 'auto',
       position: 'relative'
    here how does it look in edge:
    The symbol products is behaving just as supposed. The problem I created and which I don#t understand at all: I created another symbol (news) made the very same adjustments, but the symbol is not positioned as supposed. (of course I change the name of symbol in css). What the heck???
    Anyone any idea why this is happening?
    Here the link:
    http://www.stanko-b.com/heelbopps
    Stanko

  • Screen resolution testing

    Hi everyone,
    I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts on this - and perhaps suggestions of resources to use.
    Re: screen resolution testing for website display - I find that the various online tools all behave in a sort of strange way - and perhaps I'm not "getting" it.  
    Example - if I test my old website, www.robcosh.com on any of these services to see how it displays, selecting iPhone 5 as the size simply means they create a tall rectangle and use that as a window to view my page - where I would have to scroll up and down, or sideways.   This does not represent the reality in any way, shape or form!   My iPhone 5 shows my entire site whether it's in landscape or portrait position, and it scales automatically to fit the page.  
    With that, it seems these tools are useless to see how a site might behave with various screen resolutions.
    Can any comment on this, and point me to tools that are accurate which I can trust the output from in order to evaluate my sites' appearance across a variety of resolutions?
    Many thanks!
    Rob

    Designing between the traditional desktop computer platform and other types of devices, like smart phones, is not very simple at all.
    While it is true any modern smart phone's web browser will automatically scale a "desktop" web site to fit its screen the phone user must use pinch-zoom techniques to make the page useful at all. When a desktop web page layout is scaled to fit the phone's screen the content on the desktop layout will often be too tiny to read and the navigation elements are too tiny to select with a finger. This is one of the reasons why so many web sites have separate "mobile" versions.
    In recent years smart phones have radically increased screen resolution. Plenty of Android-based phones have 1920x1080 full HD resolution screens, some support higher resolution levels like 2560x1440. The phone screens are still the same physical size (big for a phone screen, but tiny in relation to modern desktop computer monitors), but they're packing in a lot more pixels into the same sized piece of screen real estate. This is complicating the situation for designing a mobile version of a web site. Some really old phones still in use have pretty limited resolution while some newer phones have better than 1080p resolution.
    The traditional desktop platform isn't standing still either. A regular 960 pixel layout on its own probably isn't going to cut it anymore. HiPDI techniques are recommended to bridge the gap between the resolution levels of older computer monitors and the HD and better than HD settings used in newer monitors.
    Solution? A fair amount of extra planning and work. Adobe Muse doesn't fully support a fully "responsive" web design approach, but it does support HiDPI and allows for separate mobile and tablet site generation. Vector-based graphics will grow in importance. SVG images can cleanly scale for a variety of screen sizes and work great in HiDPI layouts. But I think Adobe needs to do more work improving SVG support within Muse and Illustrator.

  • Unable to Change Screen Resolution in Remote Session - Windows Server 2012 R2

    Does anybody know of a way to allow Remote Desktop users to adjust their own screen resolution in a remote session under Windows Server 2012 R2? We are struggling with this and can't seem to find a solution.
    When users login to their RDP session and try to adjust their screen resolution this message is displayed in Control Panel:
    "The display settings can't be changed from a remote session."
    We don't want to use the "make text and other items larger or smaller" scaling feature, as this produces undesirable results with some of our applications.  We also don't want to have to support multiple types of RDP clients or RDP shortcut
    files.
    We have looked at other posts but can't find an answer that applies to Windows Server 2012 R2.  The closest thing we could find is KB2726399, but it only applies to Server 2008.
    Does anybody have a solution for Server 2012?
    Thanks

    Hi,
    Currently you cannot change the resolution from within the session.  This is normal and expected behavior.  
    Unfortunately this means you need to set the desired resolution before connecting by using custom .rdp files, manually within the Remote Desktop Client, custom web launch page, custom windows launch program, etc.
    -TP

  • Yoga 2 Pro REAL Screen Resolution

    SECOND THREAD on this HERE.
    I've just discovered that the Yoga 2 Pro seems to be fudging its screen resolution claim. I wouldn't care, except ... it actually has become a small problem ... and one that I presume will get bigger over time
    The Y2P has a "3200x1800" screen. It's beautiful. And in most regards its also overkill, since there's no such thing as 3200x1800 content, AND because it cause some issues with size of things on the screen. For this reason, and because pushing fewer pixels will tend to improve battery life, I run my Y2P at 1920x1080, or "normal full HD" resolution.
    I recently tried to log into an on-line app I use, as was greeted with a strange error message:
    Well, since I'm running 1920x1080 and using a current version of the Chrome browswer, none of that made sense. I tried Internet Explorer as well ... no luck.
    I installed Speccy, a tool to check things out inside a computer, and when I got to the display settings, here's what I found:
    That's right; I'm "set to 1920x1080", but something is seeing that the REAL resolution is 1280x720. Oh, and elsewhere in Speccy I found that the Y2P is reporting itself as a tablet rather than as a computer ... which probably isn't the issue here, but still unsettling.
    So I changed the resolution to 3200x1800. Good news: I was able to get to the web app I need. BAD NEWS: The real resolution appears to be 1600x900:
    I called Lnove tech support and got a representative who tells me that this is a Windows 8.1 problem; Windows 8.1 cannot support resolutions higher than 1920x1080, so even though the actual hardware resolution of the Y2P is 3200x1800, it needs to scale itself so Windows doesn't cry. This appears to be false (http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/03/21/scaling-to-different-screens.aspx), but I don't really know.
    As such, my conclusion is that the representative told me something that was actually the opposite of correct, with correct SEEMING to be that the maximum REAL resolution of the Y2P hardware is in fact 1600x900, with Lenovo's claim of a 3200x1800 resolution being a software/upscaling/interpolation trick.
    If that's so, it's really distressing, because it would appear to be a lie about hardware capabilities.
    I didn't start out caring about that, although obviously as this point I feel like I've uncovered a smoking gun and would like an answer from Lenovo. But at the end of the day, since I don't need or want that 3200x1800 for the reasons I explained at the top of this post, I just want to know the truth—whatever it is— and to know how to get Windows to report the same resolution to "the world" that it's reporting to me, the user.
    And I guess I wouldn't mind knowing why the scaling between real and interpolation is different depending on the settings one selects, too (do the math).
    Anyone know anything conclusive? And even better, anyone from Lenovo have an ideas what the truth is here?

    I don't know if any of these settings (resolution and/or item sizing) affects battery duration. But you could do a battery test: set it to one mode with full battery charge and then leave it on unused until the battery is 50%. Check how long that took. Repeat for the other mode and compare the time difference if any. 
    As to why there are these two layers of settings I think this is the answer: Windows metro apps and some Windows desktop application and the new elements in Windows 8 (the new start screen, the charms bar and all metro apps) have smart scaling of user interface elements (text, buttons and so on) designed to support very high resolution screens like ours. So buttons and text in such programs will adapt in size to fit the resolution. But older desktop applications, including the Windows 8.1 desktop taskbar and its icons it seems, does not do such smart scaling. So running them full resolution mean that everything is really tiny. To work around that everything can be scaled up to 200% (or 150% or 125%). I suspect that future versions of Windows or some Windows update may improve these things since the settings and the button descriptions in the settings aren't very user friendly.
    But I'm not sure about this. I hope someone in the know jumps in this thread and gives more details.
    It is a pity that Lenovo doesn't provide new Yoga 2 Pro users with a user friendly guide with information and tips on good ways to deal with resolutions and these scaling settings.

  • I cannot enlarge photos on Facebook, I only get a BLACK, BLANK screen when I click on them-someone suggested it might be "Screen Resolution Setting"? I've already uploaded new firefox version. Please help!

    I am not able to ENLARGE photos on Facebook, this means photos that friends post on News Feed & photos that I post in my FB photo albums. I only get a BLANK, BLACK screen when I click on individual photos. A friend suggested that I upload the New Firefox, and I did this today, but it did not resolve problem. Friend also suggested that it could be "Screen Resolution Setting"?? OR "Data Rate" too slow?? I do not know how to check these features? Please help! If it could be something else, please let me know. Thank you for your time & help!

    Start Firefox in [[Safe Mode]] to check if one of the add-ons is causing the problem (switch to the DEFAULT theme: Tools > Add-ons > Appearance/Themes).
    * Don't make any changes on the Safe mode start window.
    See:
    * [[Troubleshooting extensions and themes]]
    You can use these steps to check if images are blocked:
    * Open the web page that has the images missing in a browser tab.
    * Click the website favicon ([[Site Identity Button]]) on the left end of the location bar.
    * Click the "More Information" button to open the "Page Info" window with the Security tab selected (also accessible via "Tools > Page Info").
    * Go to the <i>Media</i> tab of the "Tools > Page Info" window.
    * Select the first image link and scroll down through the list with the Down arrow key.
    * If an image in the list is grayed and there is a check-mark in the box "<i>Block Images from...</i>" then remove that mark to unblock the images from that domain.
    See also:
    * http://kb.mozillazine.org/Images_or_animations_do_not_load

  • Screen resolution in 10G and converison from 6i

    Scenario is something like this:
    We are converting forms from 6i to 10G.
    We have designed forms in 6i for 1024x768 screen resolution. We don't have any issues in 6i for screen resolution of 1024x768.
    We converted the form to 10G. Screen resolution is still 1024x768 in 10G. We are using separateFrame=true in formsweb.cfg to make sure we don't show the Applet in browser window. separateFrame=true opens the application in new window and this new window can use entire screen resolution.
    Applet in new window is bigger than the screen resolution and we see scroll bars in main window when we open a child window. Obviously the applet is showing bigger footprint than client server form.
    Why is this so? Is there a way to fix this?

    If you will bring up a client-server form and a Web separate-frame form and compare them side-by-side, you can easily see the difference.
    The height and width of the actual space used by the form is identical. In fact, in my comparison, both window widths are exactly the same number of pixels. I used snagit to compare the sizes.
    However, if you compare the heights, you will see the difference. The web forms window has three bands above the actual Form canvas:
    1. The main window bar with the java icon on the left, window title, and the three windows icons for minimize, maximize and close.
    2. The pull-down menu choices on the left and the "Oracle" logo on the right. (Look-and-feel generic removes the Oracle logo, I believe.)
    3. The Window0 bar, blank except an icon on the left (right click shows Restore, Move, Size,... CLose) and an icon on the right, which clicking causes the inside window to maximize or restore.
    The Client/Server window has two bands:
    1. Main window bar, similar to 1 above, except the icon on the left is a Forms icon instead of java.
    2. Combination of 2 and 3 above: Contains both the icons in 3 above plus the pull-down menu choices. It is also about 8 pixels shorter than the web forms bar 2.
    In addition, comparing the bar with the message and status lines at the bottom of both versions, you can see that the web forms bar is about 9 more pixels higher.
    It is possible to position the Window0 at a y_pos of about -20 to regain some of the lost height (this causes the third bar described above to be hidden behind the second). But you cannot get all the height back, because of the additional height taken by Web Forms for the second bar and the bottom area.
    So what is left is to reduce the height of the canvas area used by your forms by about 20 pixels.
    I believe these heights are determined by the java runtime used by web forms rather than Oracle, so there is nothing Oracle can do about it.

  • Screen resolution in remote connection

    Hello.
    I have several macs, both at home and at the office.
    I like to use my MacBook Air on the go.
    When at the office, I like to work from a mac mini with a full HD screen resolution.
    The MacBook Air support this external screen.
    In order to avoid connecting and deconnecting the screen all the time,
    I would like to connect to the MacBook Air from the mac Mini,
    and enjoy the full HD screen resolution, while working remotely on the MB Air.
    Unfortunately, I only can access the native MB Air resolution of 1440*900.
    Is there any way to solve this ?
    Thanks for your support,
         V.

    Hi,
    Currently you cannot change the resolution from within the session.  This is normal and expected behavior.  
    Unfortunately this means you need to set the desired resolution before connecting by using custom .rdp files, manually within the Remote Desktop Client, custom web launch page, custom windows launch program, etc.
    -TP

  • Photoshop CS5 Screen Resolution

    <START OF RANT>
    Having recently decided to upgrade all my design software, I can't begin to tell you how disappointed I was (and still am) to find that after spending £231.12 GBP on buying Photoshop CS5 (upgrade from CS2) I'm unable to "Save As" and access some other features on my Acer Ferrari One due to the minimum screen resolution requirement. And before you start preaching that I should have checked, blah, blah, blah, and that it's my own fault then I only have 2 words for you: F*** O**!!! Why am I reacting like this? Simples, both Photoshop CS2 and Dreamweaver CS5 (for a mere £219.95 GBP) work fine on the very same netbook without any problems!!!
    Having spent hours upon hours browsing the tinternet (a.k.a. world wide web) and finding countless of people in the same boat as me making futile attempts to get Photoshop CS5 to work on a smaller screen resolution (the most common being 1024x600), it seems that short of changing the screen it will not work properly.
    Allow me therefore to put the following questions to the developers/coders of Photoshop CS5:
    1. Why do Photoshop CS2 and Dreamweaver CS5 work on the same netbook without fail yet Photoshop CS5 won't (unable to "Save As", can't see full screen of the "Save for Web" screen, etc.)?! WHY??? And please don't start with the lame excuse that they are different programs for different purposes because at the end of the day it's the same company. You don't buy a Mercedes C-Class and a Mercedes S-Class to find that the steering works on 1 but not the other, do you?!
    2. Are your heads so far up your place where the sun don't shine that you have forgotten about the fact that people FIRST pick a PC/Mac/Laptop/Notebook/Netbook and ONLY THEN PICK SOFTWARE?
    3. Do you want people to keep buying your software?
    If the answer to question 3 (above) is YES, then PULL YOUR FINGERS OUT, get your act together and do something about these issues, pronto. Else, rest assured you will lose custom to the competition (e.g Corel) - even loyalists like myself (who started & stuck with Photoshop since 1997 - that's 14 YEARS OF LOYALTY should one be incapable of doing the math). In this day & age any company would be wise not to make mistakes which could cost it market share - Adobe is making that mistake with Photoshop right now!!!
    </END OF RANT!!!>

    <Start of Reply>
    Why are trying to get Photoshop work on a display that is smaller then the programs was designed for. Adobe publishes screen requirements.  Next you'll want it to run on a iPod Nano so you can have it on hand all the time.
    <Just keep on RANTING if it make you feel GOOD>
    CS2 Works the Problem is all YOU
    So same to you and you foul mouth.
    Why blame Adobe Why not your net book maker fot not allowing you to set a resolution more then the display has. I have worked on machines the could the just scroll the display over the larger image that way you can see the whole image.  CS5 would work on a machine like that. Of course I want it always at hand!!! Do you even live in this world?! Have you noticed for example that phones have better cameras than the best camera available en masse 5 years ago let alone longer e.g. 10 years ago? Note how small it is!!!
    Of course I want to edit my pictures using the program of my choice and 14 years ago I did make that choice choosing PS, hence the decision to purchase the Acer Ferrari One - CS2 works like a charm.
    As to the point that I'm problematic, please read my post carefully before making statements that make you come across as foolish.
    Hobotor wrote:
    1. Serious ps users make sure their hardware meets their program's system requirements.
    2. If you decide to buy you bigger Mercedes and it won't fit into your garage anymore, I'd say that's your own fault.
    3. ALL software evolves, if you insist on using your old hardware, stick with the programs that were built to run on your old gear.
    1. OLD Hardware?! Please do your homework before replying. The Acer Ferrari One was released beginning of last year and is a top of the range netbook - more powerful than any netbook out there and any laptop that is over 2 years old. FACT! Even some of the new laptops benchmarked could not out-do this little beast. FACT!
    2. Unless one is buying a Mercedes Van or Truck it will fit in the garage (even the ML320 fits) - CS2 fits and so do other Adobe CS3 & CS4 products. So why not the PS CS5 - its no a Van or Truck. In fact it's more comparable to an S-Class.
    3. Hardware also evolves - it's getting smaller and more powerful. I could run PS on the water-cooled, Phenom X4 & NVidia GeForce 9800 GX2 powered stationary PC connected to a 32" LCD by HDMI, running Linux Mint 10 x64/Windows 7 x64 (dual boot) with MacOS X running virtually by use of VMWare on both. Instead I choose to be mobile editing my pics as soon as I have taken them (patience is not always a virtue)! As humans we also need to evolve and judging by most of the replies so far it's not looking good for human evolution (albeit some replies do make valid & intelligent arguments and are as such well received).
    Noel Carboni wrote:
    I think he means to insult Adobe, and not we fellow users.
    It would of course be better to maintain decorum, though, even while ranting.  But does a rant really demand a sharp response?  Rise above it and just don't say anything if you really have nothing to add.
    To Julian:  You should return the software for a refund ASAP before you're stuck with it for good.
    -Noel
    You are right: I do mean to offend Adobe and hope they are offended!!! However, do accept my apologies for losing composure (and my manners along with it). Unfortunately, in this day and age it seems to be the only way to reach the audience of those who can assist with problem resolution of this kind. That is of course unless the very same decide to provide the PS CS5 source code which would enable me to address the issue at hand without the need to contact Adobe or rant.
    Marian Driscoll wrote:
    Not speaking for Adobe, I would expect that they want intelligent people to keep buying their software. They also make Photoshop Elements for someone like you. Photoshop is a professional image editing application used by professionals. Professionals do not pick up a cheap low-power netbook to do their image editing. Casting the concept of 'professional' aside, Adobe expects buyers to be literate to notice the system requirements prior to paying large sums.
    If all that you are doing is web design, you should be using GIMP, which is free, requires much less resources, and is better suited for preparing web images (PNG8 with alpha anyone?).
    RE: rants... GIGO
    In fact, it would be better for you not to speak at all considering your assumptious and pompous nature. Adobe will pay attention to this post as long as it attracts traffic (you can find a simple explanation of the term 'traffic' in this context using this link). As to your ideology of the professional image editor, it is of little interest here and beside the point. Thus, please refrain from participating any further in this discussion while not in a capacity to speak on behalf of Adobe or offer anything other than remarkable insights into what one should or should not use for image editing.
    If I have not replied to anyone, please accept my apologies - I will find the time to do so another day but I wouldn't want miss Love Never Dies at the Adelphi now would I.
    Good night and good luck
    </End of Reply>

  • 24 inch iMac screen resolution options

    I have a 24 inch iMac. The native 1920x1200 resolution is great for displaying large amounts of data, but is sometimes too small for my aging eyeballs to see comfortably. The next option is 1344x840 which is easier to see, though a bit grainy, but I lose huge amounts of displayed data on web pages and things like that. I'd love the option for 1680x1050 (like the native res on 20 inch iMacs) but it is not an option on my display preferences selection menu. Why is that resolution not an option on the menu? Can I get to that resolution another way?

    To SteveCG
    I must be a conspiracy theorist. I've just bought a 20" iMac after many friends gave Macs such a great rap about their graphics etc. The 6 year-old 13" Dell Inspiron 4000 Laptop I'd just left produced much sharper screen images. Most of the work I do is just producing and reading text - reports and emails etc. I'm am SO annoyed that fonts are not sharp and clear on the 20" screen. Increasing the size (Command +) does not make any difference - the edges are still fussy.
    I complained (fruitlessly) to Apple Support after I found the best resolution I could get was only 1680 x 1050. Was told that there was nothing Apple support could do to improve it and buying a better graphics card would not help since the maximum screen resolution was related to the composition of the screen structure.
    And my theory? Apple will shortly launch a better higher resolution screen on the market and encourage us all to rush out and buy one.

  • What screen resolutions are available on His-res 15" MacBook Pro?

    Hi.  I can see in the apple web site specs what the various screen resolution settings are for the standard resultion, 1440x900,
    15" MacBook Pro (1440x900, 1280x800, 1152x720,  etc.)
    But what are the settings available for the 15" MacBook Pro with the hi-res (glossy to be specific) screen?
    I know the native resolution is 1680x1050.  Are the other settings as for the standard res also available?
    And while I have your attention, does anyone know what type of LCD panels are used on the standard and hi-res displays?
    TN, PVA, IPS ?

    The hi-reolution one :
    The Glossy one :

  • ThinkPad T500 Screen Resolution Issues

    Dear All,
    Wonder if anybody can provide any advise on the following issue(s):
    Just bought a T500 Centrino vpro, running on XP professional, 15" screen. Really happy with it, its fast and all. However, there seem to be only a few screen resolution options available. On my old Acer Travelmate, I used to have a 1024x600 which suited my myopia just fine. The closest setting to this one seems to be the 1024X768 but it is not great 'cos items appear a tad out of focus.
    I understand the T500 i just bought was built to accommodate Vista (as a side note, a Vista Business tag with serial number can be found at the back of my laptop although the machine came with XP pro preinstalled..This leads me to my other question: What happened to my Vista?) and this perhaps explains the limited resolution options available and the fact that apart from the native setting all other resolutions available are not optimal.
    Many thanks in advance.
    FB

    There are several methods to increase the font sizes on your screen:
    1) right click on desktop.
    2) select personalize
    3) select adjust font size (DPI) under the task list on the left
    4) select the larger font size that is available.
    Sometimes there are fonts that are just too small to read on the web browser.
    Hold down your Ctrl key and use the mouse scroll button to increase the font size.
    Alternatively Press the blue Fn button on the keyboard and then press the Space bar.
    Regards,
    Jin Li
    May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
    I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

  • T510 Screen resolutions error?

    To my knowledge, the screen resolution of 15,6" models should be as follows:
    HD: 1366 x 768
    HD+: 1600 x 900
    FHD: 1920 x 1080
    Then why on European Lenovo websites all T510 models are listed as 15.6 " HD+ AntiGlare 1366x768 ??
    Here is Italy, Germany and Denmark.

    Good question.
    The Lenovo european sites haven't been as good and accurate as they used to be.
    The system you linked to is described on the supprt site as follows;
    Product: ThinkPad T510 4349-4JG
    Original description: i7-620M(2.66GHz), 4GB RAM, 320GB 7200rpm HD, 15.6in 1600x900 LCD, 512MB nVIDIA Quadro NVS 3100M, CDRW/DVDRW, Intel 802.11agn, Gobi2000 WWAN, Bluetooth, Modem, 1Gb Ethernet, UltraNav, Secure chip, Fingerprint reader, Camera, 9c Li-Ion, Win7 Pro 64
    The european sites are simply wrong.
    Andy  ______________________________________
    Please remember to come back and mark the post that you feel solved your question as the solution, it earns the member + points
    Did you find a post helpfull? You can thank the member by clicking on the star to the left awarding them Kudos Please add your type, model number and OS to your signature, it helps to help you. Forum Search Option T430 2347-G7U W8 x64, Yoga 10 HD+, Tablet 1838-2BG, T61p 6460-67G W7 x64, T43p 2668-G2G XP, T23 2647-9LG XP, plus a few more. FYI Unsolicited Personal Messages will be ignored.
      Deutsche Community     Comunidad en Español    English Community Русскоязычное Сообщество
    PepperonI blog 

  • Cant get higher screen resolutions ???

    Hi all,
    hope you can help...
    I installed my new Ge4 Ti4200 last night. All works well but in display properties/settings the highest res. I can get is 1280x1024. This isn't right, i have a 20" LaCie monitor and have used the same one elsewhere at higher resolutions.
    I dont think the problem is with the monitor driver as i have tried different monitor drivers and in any case, they all say 1600x1200 etc.. in the monitor.inf. My computer at work will go 2048x1536 and thats using the "default monitor" driver provided by microsoft. so thats not limiting it.
    I can only think that when i installed the Geforce software and drivers, somehow it didn't talk to teh monitor properly and therefore limited teh available resolutions. I used to have a voodoo 3 and I know that they are notorrious for leaving old files in your system so maybe somehow old voodoo software has limited the resolutions that teh card will allow in teh display properties ?
    any help would be appreciated

    I do not know whether it helps, but I use Powerstrip .. very good software. It helps me to access monitor and video card settings easily. After installation and running this program it asks me whether I want Powerstrip to adjust resolutions that is allowed by my video card. After pressing yes I have rebooted PC. After that I could adjust screen resolutions in monitor settings up to 1600*1200 (used for plug and play default monitor). I notice that I use 15' monitor that support max resolution 1024*768 but PowerStrip allows me to change it up to 1600*1200. Of course I do not use resolutions higher than my monitor supports.
    If you have no idea to solve your problem try this program. Maybe this one can help to access available resolutions correctly.
    Here is the web page for PowerStrip: http://www.entechtaiwan.com

Maybe you are looking for