🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <psr+HAAsK9XxEwSf@nfarrell.demon.co.uk>, Neil Farrell
<neil@nfarrell.demon.co.uk> writes
>In article <JmiaBOAJduXxEwGd@wookie.demon.co.uk>, John Beardmore
><wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> writes
>>In article <Uz2TUDAZ$jXxEwUT@nfarrell.demon.co.uk>, Neil Farrell
>><neil@nfarrell.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>In article <psmMAnAaPbXxEwSG@wookie.demon.co.uk>, John
>>>Beardmore <wookie@wookie.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>In article <Mb7FBEApm2WxEwte@nfarrell.demon.co.uk>, Neil Farrell
>>>><neil@nfarrell.demon.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>>>since my new card (Oct. 95) the screen size on my display has reduced,
>>>>>supposedly due to it being old, pre 1993 (commodore 1934).
>>>>
>>>>May just be different timing from the video card...
>>Anything you cold suggest would be much appreciated.
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>When you change mode on a video card or when you use different makes of
>>card at the same resolution, the picture frequently changes size a bit,
>>or sometimes quite a lot. 
>
>Thanks John.
>
>Can anything be done to rectify this?

You have played with the horizontal and vertical size controls ?


>  Without looking, i think my monitor is
>defined by the user and as i suspect it is set to the lowest screen
>sizes/resolutions (680/480-or something @256 col.) etc.  The screen is the
>same when the video card is set to standard vga (which i think amounts to the
>settings i already have).
>
>Be honest... it's a new monitor really isn't it ?

Maybe if you can't adjust it give an adequate size picture. Might be
worth getting it fixed ?

Some of my monitors are nearly 10 year old NEC Multisync beasts.
Scrapping one that's just 3 or 4 years old seems a little premature...

J/.
-- 
John Beardmore