G4 450 Dual - 1440 x 900 ??

My G4, dual 450, gigabit ethernet is being revamped for the kids to use. I'd like to replace the very old CRT with a new LCD and am wondering if the newer resolutions are supported by the built-in video card. Specifically, the 1440 x 900 res. 19" wide-screen monitors that are plentiful and inexpensive. Maybe I should stick with a 4:3 monitor?
Any suggestions for an affordable solution would be appreciated. I will calibrate whatever monitor I finally get, but it doesn't need to be perfect, just reasonably good, and compatible.
Thanks
Message was edited by: Peter Mars
Message was edited by: Peter Mars

Those Macs have their display cards in an AGP slot, not literally "built-in". Apple System Profiler can identify exactly which card you have, and from there you can determine whether it can support that resolution.
To properly support an LCD display, you must be able to hit the display's resolution EXACTLY, not just come close. Otherwise, the picture will not look very good.
Is this article any help?
58692- Power Mac G4: Display Compatibility

Similar Messages

Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air 1.8GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 Originally released June 2012 13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 1440-by-900 resolution 4GB memory 256GB flash storage 720p FaceTime HD camera Intel HD Graphics 4

Is $1019 a good price?

Can you tell me why you don't think its a good buy? Someone bought it that must have thought it was a good buy? You?!!!
I had a macbook pro, spilled an entire latte on it. Cannot afford to drop another 1500 on a new one. I understand the air is a great machine. And for someone that is hard on equipment (aside from liquid!) with no moving parts its a better option. This one is priced at $929 - good?
Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air 1.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Originally released June 2013
13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 1440-by-900 resolution
4GB memory
128GB flash storage
720p FaceTime HD camera
Intel HD Graphics 5000

G4 Dual 1Ghz-Connecting 1440 x 900 LCD Monitor?

For my third setup of identical CPUs, I'm trying to save a little on an additional display.
Is there any reason that the G4 MDD (ATA Radion 9000 Pro, 64mb) will not properly fill out a 1440 x 900 screen? I'm looking at the Niko 1906W and the Hanns·G HW-191DP, which have DVI ports.
Thanks for reports or suggestions.

When I was working on stuff like this I called ATI and asked them about it. Their support is pretty good. There's something called the ESID or screen information thing that the monior communicates with the computer about display sizes.

Radeon 9600 Pro and Westinghouse 19" Widescreen Mon. 1440 X 900 Possible?

I have a G4 MDD with a Radeon 9600 Pro, 256 Mb card with dual DVI outs. I just got two Westinghouse 19' widescreen monitors which have a max res of 1440 X 900. Problem is when I try to set the res of the two monitors in the Displays pane, there is no selection for 1440 x 900. In fact all the settings appear to be 4:3 aspect ratios..... The card seems to have enough juice to drive both monitors as they look fairly decent at a res that is close to the 1440 x 900 but the image is obviously stretched. How do I get a 1440 x 900 selection in my Display pane in System Preferences? Please tell me this res can be driven by this card......
Thanks.
j....

Problem solved.....I used a little shareware program called SwitchResX:
http://www.madrau.com/html/SRX/About.html
Fabulous little problem solver. You can set up custom resolutions of just about any dimension, although I only tested my needed resolution, and magically once you restart the machine, the resolutions are available in the Display preferences pane. If the display doesn't look right at first, i.e. shifted to the left or right, keep playing with it and perhaps switch back to a different resolution and then back to your custom res and all should be well. 75 Mhz as a refresh rate seemed to make my video card and the monitor happiest.
Cheers.

Support for 1440 X 900 resolution

Does anyone know if I will be able to use the native resolution of 1440 X 900 with the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB GDDR SDRAM?
Thanks

Hi, SophiaHat and a Warm Welcome to Apple Discussions and the G5 Power Mac forum!
Do you have or are you buying a dual-core G5 with the PCI Express graphics?
http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html
Which display do you have or are getting?
Can you link to the exact card you are thinking about?

1440 x 900 resolution DVI?

Will my Dual Core Mac Mini support 1440 x 900 resolution if I buy a Widescreen TFT LCD Monitor?
Mac Mini Intel Dual Core, 2gb RAM Mac OS X (10.4.8)

There's no doubt the mini supports the resolution, and if the system correctly detects and identifies the display when connected, it would generally set itself to the display's default or native resolution, and offer (in the display preference panel) any other settings the display supports.
However, not all displays are correctly detected, and if not, initially the system will set itself to a low resolution default. If that happens, the display preference panel will not show the correct display model number, but you should be able to set it by clicking the 'detect display' button to force the system to check.
In a very few instances (and with some TVs connected) the system will still not correctly detect the display, in which case a third party utility such as SwitchResX would be needed. It rarely is for dedicated displays however, usually only for TVs.

Which is better, a G4-450 Dual or a Mac Mini 1.42?

which is better in terms of Sequencing and plug in performace, the G4-450 Dual or a Mac Mini 1.42?

G4-450GHz Dual with 896MB RAM
Mac Mini 1.42GHz with 1 gig of Ram
G4-450GHz Dual gets more instances with plugs, more tracks and performance then the 1.4GHz 17" Powerbook, 12" powerbook and Mac Mini which all have the same G4 processor.,
Today, i took the same 34 track session,
-all 34 tracks have a Logic Comp, Eq, Gate
-and also 8 Buses with Comp, EQ, Gates, Delays, Flange, Phasors, Pitch Shifters, 2 Reverbs (1 long and 1 plated) as well as some other toys.
-Master with Waves Ren Comp, Logic EQ.
-6 esx24 Instruments with high loads ( Harps, Strings, Cellos, Drums and Perc)
-8 Long (16 Bar) drum tracks ( Bass, HH, Snare, Toms, Overheads, Fills, Percussion dubs)
-4 Vocal takes and Dubs (more then 16 Bars long)
-Bass Track
-2 Acoustic stereo tracks
-4 Guitar tracks, dubbs and fills
-4 Slide Acoustic guitar tracks
-4 dubbed effect vocal tracks
AT first, he G4-450GHz Dual choked with 2 errors, then it buffered into the session well and played everything back fine of the same FW drive.
The mac mini got major problems and only performed 28 tracks with the esx24 tracks frozen, and from time to time after heating up chokes again, i had to wait a few minutes before i bounced the session due to overload errors.
Over all, Both have G4 Processors and about 1GIG ram (450GHz Dual is under 1 GIG), but its a clear fact that double processors win, even the lowest 450GHz Dual is still hotter then any flashy fast Bused mac mini, powerbook or iMac.

Why is 1440 x 900 "Best" for the Retina Screen per Apple?

Okay, in the System Preferences folder you can set the new MBP-R screen to one of the following settings with the description Apple provides by going to the System Preferences folder, then choosing "Displays", then unselecting the default "Best for Retina display" button by choosing instead the, "scaled" button. When you do that, you get the following choices with warnings on four of the five choices (for a screen shot see the link below):
1024 x 640, Larger Text, "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
1280 x 800, "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
1440 x 900, Best (Retina)
1680 x 1050 "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
1920 x 1200. More space, "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
There is no option for native 2880 x 1800 as presumably the text would be so tiny.
My question is, why does Apple call the 1440 x 900, "Best (Retina)"? What is best about it, why do only the other four have the scaled resolution warning since they all five are scaled are they not? Peformance concerns aside, can't I have confidence that all resolutions will be crisp as all are scaled as none are actually native (2880 x 1880)?
Then, Anand Tech has an article on how Apple handles this scaling, and they say,
"Retina MBP ships in a pixel doubled configuration. You get the effective desktop resolution of the standard 15-inch MacBook Pro's 1440 x 900 panel, but with four physical pixels driving every single pixel represented on the screen. This configuration is the best looking, . . ."
And they note the other resolutions have the potential to suffer performance and picture quality loss compared to the "Best" setting in the middle. But they just say this quality drop "can" happen, not that it "will" happen.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-sc aling
Can someone explain why this middle setting is inherently "Best", is it because the native resolution is divisible by this setting (2880 divisible by 1440; and 1800 divisible by 900)? And why does Anand Tech say there might be a quality impact in the other four? When would quality be compromised, when wouldn't it?
Thanks!

GTCA wrote:
Can someone explain why this middle setting is inherently "Best", is it because the native resolution is divisible by this setting (2880 divisible by 1440; and 1800 divisible by 900)? And why does Anand Tech say there might be a quality impact in the other four? When would quality be compromised, when wouldn't it?
Thanks!
Basically the native resolution of the retina display is 2880x1800.
so if you're using 1440x900 then everything is perfect (which is why apple recommends it). Every pixel can be mapped to 2 pixels of the retina display, and everything is sharp.
for other resolutions,
Every single (clear) pixel, gets blurred with it's neighbors, or displaced and doubled, changing the size and shape of the displayed images.
Imagine two grids. One is 2x2 (4 pixels total). The other is 3x3.
Now if you scale up the 2x2 to the 3x3, you'd think you'd be ok, because the 3x3 is bigger, but what do you do with the middle pixel? Which corner's color does it get?
if you choose any of the 4 original pixels, you distort the image, so the only choice is a blurred mix of all 4 colors. It's a mess.
This is what happens when apple tries to display a 1920x1200 resolution desktop on a 2880x1800 resolution screen.
It *****.
As a photographer all I can say is...
no thanks.
I'm waiting for a 17" macbook pro with a decent native resolution, or it's time for another brand of computer.

Resolution 1440 x 900 for Windows applications?

I am attempting to use MacBook Pro (15") to run Windows applications. Some of these are written for a screen resolution of 1280 x 1050, but the max available on the MBP is seemingly 1440 x 900. Is there any way around this, short of buying an external monitor or the 17" MBP?

I was thinking of a solution along the lines of, maybe the device handlers could reduce the Windows app image to the lower native resolution, which could then be displayed.

Why do 15.4" Macbook Pro's not support resolutions greater than 1440 x 900?

Hi.
I am a Microsoft .net software developer and am seriously considering getting a Macbook Pro to do some iPhone development. My company has provided me with a 15.4" Dell Precision M4400 that features an LED-backlit screen and nVidia Quadro FX 770M discrete graphics card, supporting 1920 x 1200 native resolution. I'd like to know why the 15.4" Macbook Pro's do not support anything greater than 1440 x 900 when it seems entirely possible? I understand that 17" MBP's do support 1920 x 1200 but it is not currently an option I'm considering pursuing due to the increased size and weight.
Thanks.
Jon
Message was edited by: jonb86uk

Just to be clear, since you're bringing up graphics cards - the 15" MBP supports up to 2560x1600 resolution on an external display, and simultaneously supports full native resolution on the internal display. As Phil points out, the native resolution of the 15" MBP's internal display is 1440x900, and Apple does not offer a higher resolution option for that model (although higher resolution 15" displays do exist). As to why that's the case, only Apple can answer that or change that.
You can submit feedback to Apple: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html.
As you know, if you want to use the iPhone SDK, you need an Intel-based Mac running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard.
Ps. Welcome back, Phil!!

Older Macbook Pro Resolution stuck at 1440 x 900

I have mid 2011 Macbook Pro 13" 2.53 GHz Intel Core i5 running 10.6.6. Recently it has developed a problem with the resolution settings. The highest resolution I can achieve is 1440 x 900 in Syetem prefs. It also means that i cannot see all the screen at one time. I have tried to delete any prefs I can see with Displays in them and it has made no difference.
Has anybody seen this problem before I have never come across anything like this before. I am currently downloading the 10.6.8 combo update and may try an update to Mountain Lion if this doesn't work.
Thank you in advance

You know what I can't remember, pehaps its not the resolution that's the problem, it's just that I cannot see the whole screen at once as if it has been zoomed, but as far as I can tell it hasn't. Made me think a bit differently about it. Thanks

13" Cannot set screen resolution in Windows 7 to 1440 by 900

Just finished installing BootCamp with Windows 7 Pro. For some reason the screen resolution in Windows display driver only goes up to 1200 not 1440 x 900. On MacOS it is obviously working fine. Any ideas?

On my MacBook Air 11 with Windows 7 64 bit I experience an even worse situation: when ever trying to install a NVidia driver (also when following the mentioned instructions) the setup executable reports - after a check of system compatibility - that no compatible graphic hardware (=320m) could be found. Luckily at least MacOS X is aware of a NVidia 320m installed.
Any Idea? Thanks

Connecting to 1440 x 900 TV

I bought a 2012 Mini a month ago. I needed my monitor to read various account settings from my old mini, so I used an HDMI cable to connect the new Mini to a 1440 x 900 TV.
Reading information from the TV screen was a hassle because black text came out in assorted colors. System Preferences doesn't give me a 1440 x 900 option. Is there a way to use this TV as a monitor?

Found it here, and the resolution is correct, indeed.
The Viewsonic manual says you can use the HDMI jack or the VGA jack to connect it to a PC.
According to specifications, where it says...
PC
RGB Analog (75 ohms, 0.7 Vp-p)
PC
1440x900 (preferred), 1024x768, 1280x768
Mac®
G3/G4/G5 up to 1280x1024
...it's only the analog VGA input able to take data signals. And for older PPC Macs it states 1280x1024 as max resolution, for PC even less. So, you must not expect 1440x900 to show up in System Preferences...
When checking the manual, I don't know where you found that the HDMI input can be used for PC (or Mac). On page 7 it clearly states that HDMI is for "A/V devices" (meaning DVD players, settop boxes, etc, providing a video signal), while only VGA is listed for PC (or Mac). Page 12 underlines this graphically.
Bottom line:
You can use only VGA to get a somewhat acceptable picture quality, and the image will be scaled, meaning not using the screens native resolution but a smaller one.
Hence, what you experience when using HDMI, and with missing the 1440x900 resolution, was to be expected.

Macbook Pro 15" high-res 1440 x 900 setting using SwitchResX

Hi,
I have Macbook Pro wiht15" high-res display. But I seems I can set the 1440x900 resolution by default option. There is only 1440x852... thouth I can't understand it.
Anyway, someone seems to enable 1440 x 900 resolution with SwitchResX. I also tried to do it. But I can't make it because I have no information the timing parameter. So Is there someone have the information for 1440x900 resolution?
Thanks in advance!

Hi,
I have Macbook Pro wiht15" high-res display. But I seems I can set the 1440x900 resolution by default option. There is only 1440x852... thouth I can't understand it.
Anyway, someone seems to enable 1440 x 900 resolution with SwitchResX. I also tried to do it. But I can't make it because I have no information the timing parameter. So Is there someone have the information for 1440x900 resolution?
Thanks in advance!

NX6600 VTD128E Diamond Edition does it support 1440 x 900 resolution

Hi everybody
This is my first posting to this forum. I soon have all the parts together to build my new rig. The only thing missing is the monitor. I am very interested in the ViewSonic VA1912w which is a 19" LCD Wide Screen Monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900. To get the full performance the Graphic card should be able to support this resolution. Thanks for your advice.

the graphic card should be able to do it, just make sure you install the monitor driver, which will either be on a disk included with it, or you may have to download it from the manufacturer's website, or through Windows Update

G4 450 Dual - 1440 x 900 ??

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for