Does the la-*test*-('") BIOS update for the A8V-VM SE ( 0702 / June 1 ) support the 1440 x 900 resolution? Thanks!

That's a good question, I can't find any documentation on it from ASUS. The GPU will support greater resolutions than that, but the release notes are silent.

That said, if you can't get a particular resolution to work and it is within the capabilities of your GPU, the problem is usually one of monitor compatibility and/or drivers. That's something of an odd resolution, are you sure your monitor supports it?

Thanks for your reply.........and yes, the monitor supports it (it's the recommended setting)......that is one of the most common resolutions for a 19" Wide-Screen. ASUS claims that it does support it.....and as I mentioned, has a new BIOS out as of June 1st.........the only forum talk I can find was a few weeks prior to that.

Here is a link to the forum talk (I also posted there)..........and then a link to something ASUS posted:

http://vip.asus.com/forum/view.aspx?id=200...SLanguage=en-us

http://support.asus.com/faq/faq.aspx?no=5C...SLanguage=en-us


P.S. - This is on a friends computer.

The post from ASUS indicates that the BIOS has supported that resolution for some time. Have you updated the driver as the post recommends?

I haven't yet.......it's on a friends computer and I'll be doing that tomorrow.

ASUS "claims" it does........however, in that thread, a guy (May 2007) says he had the la-*test*-('") and it still didn't work.........but, an update came out a couple of weeks later (maybe he will respond back).........I was just hoping to get some info from someone here who might have already installed the newest version.........guess I'll just have to go into it "hoping" it'll do the trick. Thanks!

We don't have a lot of VM boards in here, so our information is a little thin. Please do post the results of your findings for others' benefit.

Thanks........and I'll certainly post back with results.

Well, the la-*test*-('") "published" BIOS update didn't do the trick..........so, as suggested on the ASUS board, I've contacted them directly to get one that "does" support Wide-Screen resolutions.

I ran into something weird yesterday...........I somehow managed to set the resolution to something the monitor didn't support......it made the screen almost unreadable. So, before I figured out how to change it back while hardly being able to make out what was on the screen, I decided to start up in Safe Mode. When I went to the resolution settings, there were many more available AND the 1440 x 900 was there......in SAFE MODE......I'm use to seeing it being the opposite....having very few. Anyway, changing it there and re-booting didn't help, of course. I finally did get it back to something that was viewable. But why in the heck were all those resolutions showing up in Safe Mode and not in Normal Mode?

Bandit, with regards to whether the mobo/bios supports the res you require, you're in extremely good hands with Arlie.

As for my input, here's a shedload of background info ... and then a bit more at the end

Windows resolution support is dependant upon 3 factors:

• GPU/Onboard chip (you have VIA K8M890 + VT8237A)
• Driver Support
• Windows Integration

Now, among the 3 items in the above list, any number can cause an incompatibility/inability to reach your required/desired resolution. However, when assured the hardware supports the particular res, the latter 2 acting together creating an incompatibility can be the root of the problem.

Virtually every monitor is now certified as "plug and play". In days of old, without a driver, Windows would detect a monitor as "plug and play", and load the standard monitor driver. This same driver is hooked into the vga driver at initial windows load, and also at boot - which is why up until 2000 (NT5) and to some extent XP (NT5.1) the bootscreens are displayed in the lowest resolution available to the OS - 640x480 (NT5) and 800x600 (NT5.1) and with a whopping 256 colors have no polish or finesse.

In the scenario of a plug and play monitor being detected, the max resolution, is then determined by the GPU/mobo, as well as the 2 device drivers: GPU/mobo and standard monitor driver.

However, the use of plug and play for the purposes of identifying a monitor has been taken one step further. Rather than have a unit detected as plug and play, some models transmit (the best description I can think for it) the model description to the OS. Presuming a driver had been included in the XP driverset this information can then be displayed instead of just "plug and play monitor" or "default monitor" (in some cases) in the display module of the control panel. A fully updated software driver can improve this situation further by adding/removing resolutions and/or support/diagnostic applications.

The purpose of identifying the monitor to the OS is simple. It allows the 3 sets of software to interact together - GPU/mobo & monitor drivers & Windows.

Very simply, those 3 should integrate as follows:

-------------------
OUTPUT SIGNAL
-------------------
GPU/MOBO (HARDWARE)
-------------------
GPU/MOBO (DRIVER)
-------------------
MONITOR (DRIVER)
-------------------
WINDOWS
-------------------
MONITOR (DRIVER)
-------------------
GPU/MOBO (DRIVER)
-------------------
GPU/MOBO (HARDWARE)
-------------------
REFRESH REQUEST
-------------------

When this process is running smoothly (depending upon driver versions, and the actual monitor driver being installed) Windows should detect and give the ability to select upto and including the min/max resolutions for that model based upon hardware limitations set at manufacturing level and limitations in the drivers themselves.
This is also where the information regarding refresh rates is obtained from. I believe the option "Hide modes this monitor cannot display" when selecting a refresh rate is due to this information being selected initially by the standard vga/plug and play monitor driver, and then limited by the actual GPU/mobo and/or monitor driver.

As an example, the highest possible resolution available to an identified 17" CRT (HiSync 775N for example) would be 1280x1024 (I think this was due to tubesize). To obtain this, the information from both the GPU/mobo and monitor drivers would be obtained and the relevant results given.

In some cases, the max resolution for an unidentified 17" CRT plug and play monitor would be dictated by the plug and play monitor driver. Due to it's nature, this driver includes all resolutions for maximum compatibility, thus allowing selection of rediculously high resolutions way out of the range of support for that monitor resulting in an out of sync message.

TIP: If selecting a resolution/refresh rate on 2000/XP results in an out of sync message, loss of sync or otherwise unexpected outcome, Windows allows around 45 seconds before this change is commited to the registry. Hitting escape in this time restores the previous setting. (I believe this is dependant upon "Apply the new display settings without restarting" being enabled - which if I remember rightly is enabled by default in Windows)

With both scenarios in mind, there are still occasions when in either case, the expected outcome inexplicably does not materialise.

So, to return to your question ...
In general, only the standard 100% required drivers are loaded in safe mode. If I remember rightly, safe mode should either load the drivers used in windows setup (BEFORE being prompted to change to a better resolution and the initial stepup to 800x600 [XP]) or the standard vga driver usually providing 256 colors and a max selectable res of 1024x768 (if you're lucky).

From the way you've described it, Windows seems to have loaded the full device driver in safe mode, and set about reading the resolution information held within possibly more than one vga driver. Very odd indeed. However, I'd probably expect Windows to return to the default functionality should you return to safe mode again in the near future. Personally, the highest resolution I've ever been able to select in safe mode is 1024x768 @ 256 colors.

A possible reason for you being unable to select 1440x900 in standard Windows mode escapses me at present. Initially, as Arlie mentioned, check your driver versions, and update where applicable. So, here's the links to the single downloads;

VIA Hyperion Pro Driver Package Version 5.12A [viaarena.com]
K8M890CE/K8N890CE Display Driver [viaarena.com]

Also, moving along with the notes above, check to see how your monitor is identified. If it is plug and play, install/download the driver (if available) for your monitor and see if that makes any difference.

I know there's loads of probably unrequired info in this post. I apologise if some may not make 100% sense - it's around 0200 in the UK, and I'm still working on Greek time (GMT+2).

I love it whcn Typo shows up with the details. Long and short, Bandit, load the drivers for the VGA and the monitor.

Thanks Arlie

Bandit, if you read the above post BEFORE I got to it, please ignore any instructions/links for nvidia drivers. I misread your mobo model. The correct links for VIA drivers have now been added.

Just to clarify slightly ... I wrote the previous post based on what should happen with the drivers and in Windows. Having thought about it since with a sound and working mind, should updating the drivers not work, the only thing I can think of is the BIOS.

I did come across a post with the help of google stating the mobo supports 1440x900 (FS: AMD 64 3000+(939)+ ASUS A8V-VM(PCiEx) + 1GB DDR 400 - min. 2.5 yrs warranty left)

If all else fails, it may be an idea to see if you can contact the seller of that mobo, and enquire how s/he managed to do it?

Thanks for the great information!! Typojinx.......I was going to ask about the Chip Set but I see you went back and changed it.......I was thinking it was the VIA.

I do currently have the current video drivers installed..........but can find the monitor drivers no where.......even the disc that came with the monitor doesn't have "that" monitor listed........it's a MAG LT1919W Series..........it is currently showing up as "Plug and Play" monitor..........I couldn't even find the driver on MAG's site........where else could I look?

Bandit, on another trawl around google, I came across a post by an MS-MVP (Microsoft Most Valuable Professional), which stated that this monitor (and probably any other) will not support widescreen resolutions until the correct driver has been installed for the GPU - In your case the VIA K8M890CE/K8N890CE Chrome9™ on the K8M890 chipset. The post was relative to strange behaviour with this model under Vista, however, this should also apply for XP.

It also appears MAG don't issue drivers for any of the LCD series monitors. Instead they rely upon sending the information via DDC (Display Data Channel);

The above has been taken from an FAQ article on MAG's website. It appears MAG need to update the other FAQ articles, as the vast majority of archived files on driversguide/other driver archive sites hold driver/settings information that does not include new LCD units.

So, from this, you need to update the hyperion drivers and the Unichrome chipset drivers, and see if that works. Assuming that works, it will have updated the driver and added new DDC detection signatures for your monitor, hopefully allowing you to select 1440x900 .

OK, thanks so much! Being that this is on a friends computer, it's going to be Monday or Tuesday before I can get my hands on it............but surely with ALL this info, I can get him up and running with 1440 x 900 .

Thanks again!!

Richard
Aubrey, Texas

To quote something I said at work yesterday ... "If that doesn't work, then christ knows what's up with it!

I hope this does work for you, if it doesn't, I'm stumped! .