Screen resolution question: wysiwyg?

Hi all,
my screen is set to 1680x1050, i.e. I get 80ppi, which means that all A4 pages are shown too big.
Can I correct that in any way? I need to see layout pages exactly in the size that they will look like in print, wysiwyg. It's cumbersome and annoying to muddle around with the page display in each and every app to downsize it by visual judgement to what might be the correct output size.
Thanks a lot!
Peter

Actually "wysiwyg" these days refers more to relative dimensions, not exact dimensions. After all, how big something looks on the screen depends partly on far away you are from the screen, and the trend is to put more pixels on the screen per inch. Currently, there is no way to adjust the exact resolution precisely enough so that what is printed out is exactly the same size as the displayed image, unless one of the standard non-native resolutions just happens to produce this effect with the program you are using to print.
But what you want may be in store at some point, once the display pixels take the next quantum leap in smallness, where the pixels become so small that the native resolution is useless and irrelevant. It's called +Resolution-Independent User Interface+, and it is publicly known that Apple already has the foundation for it in Mac OS X. How and when they will use it, we're not supposed to discuss or speculate about in the forum.

Similar Messages

  • Image size related to screen resolution - Questions

    Trying hard to get my head around picture dimensions vs quality vs screen/printer resolution, can anyone confirm if what I think I understand is correct.
    My Canon RAW images are 3888 x 2592 pixels. If I export from LR a full sized JPEG (at 100% quality) I get an image that is 3888 x 2592 pixels in size. So the questions:
    1) If I open the JPEG in something simple like Windows Picture Viewer and hit the 'Actual Size' button then put simply is each pixel in the picture lighting up a pixel on the screen ?
    2) If I zoom out then presumably there are more picture pixels than screen pixels so some data is thrown away and there is some downsizing of the image ?
    3) If I zoom in then there is not enough data and there is some intrpolation to upsize the image ?
    What I'm actually trying to get to grips with is, if i want to post pics online or e-mail them, when to drop the quality a bit to save filespace and when to change image size.
    Cheers

    Downsample a LOT for email and quite a lot for web viewing. Not only might they not look as good as they should, people will not be happy waiting for a 3000+ pixel image to download to them.
    A "full width"
    Of course, if someone wants to print the photo, then you need to maintain the resolution and they should know it will take some time to download.
    If you want to see what size others use for the web and can't estimate by looking at it on your monitor in a browser, you can find out the dimensions of a picture you are viewing. In Firefox and windows, right click on the photo and select properties.
    flickr, for example, resizes to various sizes. Even though you can upload full size images to flickr, you might not want to do so to protect your full-size image from being used.

  • Windows screen resolution question

    I wonder if anyone can shed some light on this issue...
    I used a MacBook Pro recently to test the Windows compatibility of a CD-ROM product I'm developing. In most respects it was fine as a substitute for a test PC, but the screen didn't change resolution when it should have done - for very boring reasons the product is supposed to switch whatever it's running on to 800x600, and it the method we're using (an Xtra for Director) has worked fine on all Mac and Windows systems except this.
    So I'm thinking that the graphics side of Windows running on an Intel Mac is at a system level very different to a 'real' PC, which is a shame as I was thinking of getting a new MacBook partly to give myself an easier Windows testbed option than constantly borrowing or hijacking other people's machines.
    Does this sound like an exceptional event, or will I find that anything related to graphics/switching resolutions will probably not work the same way on a lovely shiny Intel G5 MacBook as a boring old Windows laptop?
    G5 iMac    

    1280 x 800

  • Thinkpad T61 Screen Resolution Question

    Is it unusual for a t61 to have a screen with a max resolution of 1680x1050? Cause i've got one.

    some T61 have WSXGA+ but it is not that common, there are some WXGA and WXGA+ which are more common. 
    Regards,
    Jin Li
    May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
    I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

  • Question: T400 LED Screen Resolution Limited to WXGA?

    Lenovo's website (US) is now only showing the following screen options for the T400:
    14.1 WXGA TFT, w/ CCFL Backlight, Camera
    14.1 WXGA+ TFT, w/ CCFL Backlight, Camera [add $30.00]
    14.1 WXGA TFT, w/ LED Backlight, Camera [add $50.00] 
    14.1 WXGA TFT High Nit, w/ LED Backlight [add $120.00]  
    14.1 WXGA TFT High Nit, w/ LED Backlight, Camera [add $150.00]
    Does anyone know why the LED screen is limited to WXGA and not WXGA+?
    I'm looking to replace my T40p, and I'm not willing to go down in screen resolution.
    Thanks,
    RocketDude
    RocketDude
    T400s 2801-CTO

    bananaman wrote:
    There are 14.1 WXGA+ LED models available right now. Check the ThinkPad Reference (tabook) and search. That option is just apparently not available in CTO (Custom To Order) systems from the Lenovo Store at the moment.
    This brings up the question: How can you order a pre-configured ThinkPad like those listed in tabook? Do you have to buy from a reseller? Why can't you order one from the online Lenovo Store? (Maybe you can, but it's not obvious to me how to do it, at least for the U.S. online store...)
    Results of Your Ideal Business-Class Laptop survey, concluded 2009-07-29.
    Did someone help you?
    Say thanks! with a kudo.
    Even better: Pay it forward, help someone else.

  • Satellite M110 - question on Screen resolution 1600 x 900

    Hi experts, hoping you can help me out.
    Just bought an external screen which needs 1600 x 900 screen resolution,.... trouble is my display settings don't have that option.
    If I "Hide modes that this monitor cannot display" I can only choose 800x600 or 1024x768
    If I uncheck this box "hide...display", the nearest I can choose are 1280x1024 or 1600x1200
    Where is the 1600 x 900 option??? everything on the external screen is sttrreettched out.....
    I have
    - Satellite M110 PSMB0A
    - Windows XP
    - Display adapter says "Mobile Intel(R) 945GM Express Chipset Family"
    - I've downloaded the latest driver, (at least I think I did!) and my driver version is 6.14.10.4543 dated 23/03/06
    Thanks in advance for your help.
    Nigel db
    Message was edited by: nigeldb

    Hi
    There are two reasons why a favorite resolution is not available.
    1) the graphic card driver does not support such resolution
    2) or/and the graphic card doesnt support it too.
    In the user manual of Satellite M110 you should find a info (somewhere at the end of user manual) what resolutions are supported and available.
    If the graphic card would support such resolution then this would mean that your installed driver is the reason why you cannot choose this resolution.
    In such case its advisable to update the driver and to use the one from the Intel page.
    The graphic chip is Intel one and therefore the driver from Intel page should work.
    In some cases you would be not able to install the driver executing the setup.exe.
    In such case you have to go to the device manger and have to use the advanced installation procedure. Then you could point to the driver package which you have downloaded previously from Intel page.

  • [SOLVED] Arch Linux on Macbook - Can't fix Screen Resolution

    I just installed Arch Linux as a dual-boot on my Macbook.  I really like it so far.  However, I came across a problem that is really bothering me.  It may seem simple, but no matter what I try, I only get "1024x768" and "800x600" resolution options.  What I need is "1280x800."  Here is my xorg.conf file right now:
    Section "ServerLayout"
    Identifier "X.org Configured"
    Screen 0 "Screen0" 0 0
    InputDevice "Mouse0" "CorePointer"
    InputDevice "Keyboard0" "CoreKeyboard"
    EndSection
    Section "Files"
    ModulePath "/usr/lib/xorg/modules"
    FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/misc"
    FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/100dpi:unscaled"
    FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/75dpi:unscaled"
    FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/TTF"
    FontPath "/usr/share/fonts/Type1"
    EndSection
    Section "Module"
    Load "glx"
    Load "dri2"
    Load "extmod"
    Load "dbe"
    Load "dri"
    Load "record"
    EndSection
    Section "InputDevice"
    Identifier "Keyboard0"
    Driver "kbd"
    EndSection
    Section "InputDevice"
    Identifier "Mouse0"
    Driver "mouse"
    Option "Protocol" "auto"
    Option "Device" "/dev/input/mice"
    Option "ZAxisMapping" "4 5 6 7"
    EndSection
    Section "Monitor"
    Identifier "Monitor0"
    VendorName "Monitor Vendor"
    ModelName "Monitor Model"
    EndSection
    Section "Device"
    ### Available Driver options are:-
    ### Values: <i>: integer, <f>: float, <bool>: "True"/"False",
    ### <string>: "String", <freq>: "<f> Hz/kHz/MHz"
    ### [arg]: arg optional
    #Option "ShadowFB" # [<bool>]
    #Option "DefaultRefresh" # [<bool>]
    #Option "ModeSetClearScreen" # [<bool>]
    Identifier "Card0"
    Driver "vesa"
    VendorName "Intel Corporation"
    BoardName "Mobile 945GM/GMS, 943/940GML Express Integrated Graphics Controller"
    BusID "PCI:0:2:0"
    EndSection
    Section "Screen"
    Identifier "Screen0"
    Device "Card0"
    Monitor "Monitor0"
    SubSection "Display"
    Viewport 0 0
    Modes "1280x800"
    Depth 1
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
    Viewport 0 0
    Modes "1280x800"
    Depth 4
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
    Viewport 0 0
    Modes "1280x800"
    Depth 8
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
    Viewport 0 0
    Modes "1280x800"
    Depth 15
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
    Viewport 0 0
    Modes "1280x800"
    Depth 16
    EndSubSection
    SubSection "Display"
    Viewport 0 0
    Modes "1280x800"
    Depth 24
    EndSubSection
    EndSection
    I just followed the instruction on the Arch Linux - Macbook Wiki page, and everything worked perfectly, except the resolution question.  The only thing I added to the file is the 'Modes    "1280x800"' lines.  This is exactly what I've always done with linux, and it has always worked.  So I'm perplexed, and I can't find any solutions that actually work by googling it.  Has anyone else come across this problem, and even more important, does anyone know what is wrong?
    Thanks.
    Last edited by meolson (2009-09-23 04:44:23)

    Ok.  I figured it out.  I found this forum:
    http://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=56899
    I found it before, but I had done everything, or so I thought.  At the end, he mentions two things that are important to fix the resolution.  I've repeated them here, and adapted them to what I had before:
    pacman -S xf86-video-intel
    edit /etc/X11/xorg.conf, and change video card driver from 'vesa' to 'intel'
    I thought I had installed xf86-video-intel already, but apparently I hadn't.  So, I followed those two steps, and now, it looks so much better!  Thanks to anyone who tried to looked for a solution.

  • How to set Dynamic screen resolution in flex..?

    Hi All.,
    I am developing a flex application in adobe flex4. to set the application height is 100% width is 100% and using <flexmdi:MDICanvas> to set the height 780 ,so application get displayed on normal window correctly., But i try to press f11 key the screen size is expanded at the time application size is set exactly, MdiCanvass size is  not expanding on screen resolution.
    My question is how can I make sure that the application should look uniform across different platform/different browsers and different monitors to display screen resolution auto adjust in mdi canvass also.
    With Regards.,
    LinFlex-

    Hi,
    Use the below syntax...
    CALL TRANSACTION tcode... OPTIONS FROM opt
    ... OPTIONS FROM opt
    Effect
    Allows you to control processing using the values of the componetns of the structure opt, which must have the ABAP Dictionary type CTU_PARAMS. The components have the following meanings:
    DISMODE
    Display mode (like the MODE addition)
    UPDMODE
    Update mode (like the UPDATE addition)
    CATTMODE
    CATT mode (controls a CATT)
    CATT mode can have the following values:
    ' ' No CATT active
    'N' CATT without single-screen control
    'A' CATT with single-screen control
    DEFSIZE
    Use default window size
    RACOMMIT
    Do not end transaction at COMMIT WORK
    NOBINPT
    No batch input mode (that is, SY-BINPT = SPACE)
    NOBIEND
    No batch input mode after the end of BDC data.
    The components DEFSIZE , RACOMMIT, NOBINPT, and NOBIEND always take the following values:
    'X' Yes
    ' ' No
    If you do not use the OPTIONS FROM addition, the following control parameter settings apply:
    DISMODE
    From addition MODE
    UPDMODE
    From addition UPDATE
    CATTMODE
    No CATT active
    DEFSIZE
    Do not use default window size
    RACOMMIT
    Successful end on COMMIT WORK
    NOBINPT
    Batch input mode active ( SY-BINPT = X
    NOBIEND
    Batch input mode remains active after the BDC data
    Jogdand M B

  • Screen resolution in WinPE 5.0 on UEFI devices

    Hi
    Can you please help me with the issue i am facing? 
    The screen resolution in WinPE is very high, the drop down values in MDT wizard are extremely small and almost unreadable. I see a similar question posted on technet for screen resolution in
    WinPE 4.0 but I am unable to fix it.
    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/windows/en-US/66bd25d3-cc37-4841-be38-3f427db36b57/winpe-screen-resolution-problem-no-display-signal-out-of-range?forum=w7itproinstall
    The HTA screen looks OK but the when you select the drop down, the values are extremely small. 
    I also referred to the article from Johan
    http://www.deploymentresearch.com/Research/tabid/62/EntryId/51/Setting-screen-resolution-in-WinPE-4-0.aspx
    Below is my setup:
    MDT 2013
    Windows 8.1 x64
    Lenovo Thinkpad Tablet 10 (UEFI)
    Tried the below but no luck:
    Changed the ColorDepth to 32 in unattend.xml in WinPE pass
    Tried modifying the Wizard.hta with different screen size and style.zoom
    Playing around with the HTA settings might help but i am unsure how it looks and behaves on other UEFI devices.
    Currently we are using Lenovo Tablet 10 but soon will also be using Surface Pro.
    Am I missing something or is there a better way to do fix it?

    Hi,
    If our only issue is this particular font size, we can adjust some setting in files of
     script folder.
    For example,  open  DeployWiz_LanguageUI.xml under Scripts folder, here is just an example to make keyboard layout font large.
    Find:
    <SELECT NAME="KeyboardLocale_Edit" class=WideEdit >
    Edit it as:
    <SELECT NAME="KeyboardLocale_Edit" class=WideEdit style="font-size: 30px" >
    The result is just like:
    About the root cause, there would be something wrong with the WinPE image, in my test, WinPE 5 works good under UEFI mode. You can recreate one for test.
    Alex Zhao
    TechNet Community Support

  • 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>

  • My AT&T Yahoo email gives me an error message saying that my screen resolution is too low, but it is at 1600 x 900. This only happens in Firefox, not in IE.

    When I try to use Firefox to access my ATT.NET account I get an error message about my screen resolution being to low to support the site.My resolution is not low its at the highest available. I also use IE9 and do not have this problem. I am running Windows 7 and Firefox 15.0.1. This has been an ongoing problem. I am using a Toshiba laptop 15.6 screen with 4GB RAM. I see other complaints about this specific problem but have yet to find a solution. Thanks for your help.

    Please see added comments on the question. Its not a zoom issue its all about the new ATT design email and Firefox, I agree with Noah there a bug between the old and the new and firefox only.
    UPDATE:
    I stand corrected. I went back in again and did the reset zoom and it appears to eliminate the error. Problem solved but I am not sure why I never set up zoom and didn't have the problem on any other site. Will it need to be done each and every time I go into that page or is it now corrected?

  • Yahoo is giving screen resolution error for my Sony Vaio laptop at 1600 x 900

    My laptop display had no screen resolution problem before upgrading to 3.6.10. The error states I should set to 1024 x 768 pixel resolution. This is less than that I already have. I don't understand why this occurs.

    Please see added comments on the question. Its not a zoom issue its all about the new ATT design email and Firefox, I agree with Noah there a bug between the old and the new and firefox only.
    UPDATE:
    I stand corrected. I went back in again and did the reset zoom and it appears to eliminate the error. Problem solved but I am not sure why I never set up zoom and didn't have the problem on any other site. Will it need to be done each and every time I go into that page or is it now corrected?

  • Proper screen resolution for optimum work with SD

    A couple of questions.
    I've just set up a 27" IMAC with FC. What's surprised me is the poor quality of the SD image I'm getting in the Viewer and Canvas. Two years ago I edited another SD project on a system using two 24" Apple monitors, and at that time we were all amazed by the quality of the image. Hardly looked like SD at all. We were even impressed when we looked at the work on the full screen. Yet that's not what I'm getting now.
    I'm just wondering if there as been a change in the most recent version of FC. (Mine is FCP 7;I don't know what version I was using two years ago on that other project.) I looked in the manual and under "Viewer/Pop-Up Menu" I read: "+If the Viewer is scaled to anything other than 100 percent and you're displaying a DV clip, only one field is shown during playback or while scrubbing through the clip+." Has this always been the case with DV, which my SD footage is? Could my problem only be a problem with this latest version of FC?
    As it is, set optimally on the 27" with a second monitor for the Browser, my Viewer and Canvas are producing a 199% size image. So given that, plus the fact that I'm only seeing one field, maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the weak image I'm getting.
    Second question.
    After reading about this loss of one field when the DV image is other than 100% I thought I'd set the Viewer pop-up menu to 100% rather than "Fit Window". Problem here, of course is that my image is now very small - a diagonal of only 7 inches. To try and deal with this I've played around with the IMAC screen resolution and when I change it from 2560x1440 to 1920X1080 I can get a 100% two field image with a 9 1/2 inch diagonal. Not great but better.
    Does anyone think this is a recommended way to go? I'm always confused about how a monitor is reproducing a format that is 525 TV lines so the issue of the optimal resolution on my screen is confusing me. (I tried setting the screen to 1600X900. Now my 100% image is 11 1/2 inches but there is a very noticeable drop in image quality.)
    Thanks for any help or advice I can receive.
    John

    Has this always been the case with DV, which my SD footage is?
    Yes. Perhaps you old system had the Viewer and Canvas windows set to 100% and your new one doesn't.
    Could my problem only be a problem with this latest version of FC?
    Not likely.
    As it is, set optimally on the 27" with a second monitor for the Browser, my Viewer and Canvas are producing a 199% size image. So given that, plus the fact that I'm only seeing one field, maybe I shouldn't be surprised at the weak image I'm getting.
    BINGO!
    For best results, always use a properly calibrated, external TV monitor for critical viewing when editing.
    -DH
    Message was edited by: David Harbsmeier

  • External screen resolution "defaults" to low-rez (T510, docked; Samsung SyncMaster 730b monitor)

    I have a T510 Thinkpad with docking station (Windows XP) with Samsung SyncMaster 730b monitor. Every time I start up, it defaults to low resolution and I need to manually increase the screen resolution. Is there a way to make the default setting for the external monitor is high-resolution?
    Thanks!

    hey ct-user,
    it is hard to say if this is caused by the external monitor or by the docking station.
    try having the the external monitor connected to the T510 and see if it "saves" the resolution that was previously set.
    also, test the external monitor on a different laptop and see if the same issue occurs.
    WW Social Media
    Important Note: If you need help, post your question in the forum, and include your system type, model number and OS. Do not post your serial number.
    Did someone help you today? Press the star on the left to thank them with a Kudo!
    If you find a post helpful and it answers your question, please mark it as an "Accepted Solution"!
    Follow @LenovoForums on Twitter!
    Have you checked out the Community Knowledgebase yet?!
    How to send a private message? --> Check out this article.

  • How to get more independent of screen resolution

    Read already a number of topics about this in this forum. But I still wonder
    how to set up ones Swing components for different screen resolutions. What
    I did up to now is checking for the current screenwidth and setting sizes for
    each resolution. Worked OK. But nowadays there are so many different
    screen sizes, this is getting too complex.
    I mean, one has to set the component's size, its location, the fonts used,
    possible Icons in the Toolbar, the size of the components internal panels,
    the insets, border sizes, and many other things. So, assuming ones window
    with all the components looks great in one resolution, the developer still has
    to check whether it all looks so great as well in any other thinkable screen
    resolution. Even in those which the developer isn't even able to create using
    his graphics card.
    So, my question is: Is there somewhere a clever tool inside Java which makes
    the total layout of components and their sizes inside the user's main window
    more independent of the screen resolution?
    For instance, it would be great to be able to define the component's size,
    location, and so on, using the actual size it should appear on any screen.

    You are right. For those using advanced high resolution
    monitors, this will be a disadvantage. However, I'm quite
    sure, the average user I'm aiming for, still uses rather
    standard type of monitors. Of, course, in the (near?)
    future, everybody may be using high resolution (same
    progress as with our tv-screens). So I may have to include
    these screen sizes as well later.
    Your presentation made me aware of the great need for
    everybody in the graphics business for a solution for this.
    Still think, this can be automated in a not too difficult way.
    I mean, if I can hard code this in such a way, that nobody
    is able to see the difference of the program running on a
    different resolution, it must be possible to include an
    option in whatever programming language, to create ones
    graphics components in a resolution independent way.
    At least, I think. May be a good starting point for my next
    project.
    Thanks anyway for your help an remark. I think you still
    deserve your dukes. Here they are.

Maybe you are looking for