Any motherboard with onboard DVI video?

On Jan 1, 4:39 pm, Larc wrote:
On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 10:40:04 -0800 (PST), wrote:
You may have problems installing XP on that board with out a floppy
drive and there are very few external floppy drives for sale that will
work with built-in drivers for external floppy drives. I think the
board you selected is mainly designed for use with Vista although it
will work with XP if you can figure out how to "load additional
drivers" without a floppy since XP doesn't support anything but a
floppy for that purpose. I found 2 external floppy drives that will
work for an XP install.......one for about $75 and another only
available thru Amazon.com from the original owner(a risky purchase?).
To install XP I think you will find it better to use a board
supporting a standard floppy drive. If you google "external floppy
drive for XP install you'll find hundreds of posts of people who had
problems installing XP due to the requirement for a floppy drive.
With Vista you can use a floppy, cd or usb drive to load drivers
during the O.S. install .

Does XP look for a floppy during install and get upset if it can't
find one? I've installed XP dozens of times and have never had to use
a floppy for the process. Although there are floppy drives on all my
computers and usually on those I build for others, I never use them
except for running Memtest86+ and similar programs. And even Memtest
will run from a CD.

Just remembered one other thing I use floppy drives for... I run a
WinME startup floppy and load BIOS updates into the virtual drive it
creates so I can flash from there.

Larc

§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

I think he'll be ok as long as XP recognizes his drives.....not sure
if it will have drivers for all Sata II drives, especially if he
wants to set the system up in RAID 0 or RAID 1. My pc's all have RAID
set ups and I HAD to install drivers during O.S. set up. Just wanted
him to be prepared if he uses the board he mentioned. Have you had
any problems installing XP without loading drivers with SATA II drives
or have you been leaving the jumper on the SATA drives to keep them
set for Sata I (150 gbs)?

On Tue, 1 Jan 2008 15:55:15 -0800 (PST), wrote:

I think he'll be ok as long as XP recognizes his drives.....not sure
if it will have drivers for all Sata II drives, especially if he
wants to set the system up in RAID 0 or RAID 1. My pc's all have RAID
set ups and I HAD to install drivers during O.S. set up. Just wanted
him to be prepared if he uses the board he mentioned. Have you had
any problems installing XP without loading drivers with SATA II drives
or have you been leaving the jumper on the SATA drives to keep them
set for Sata I (150 gbs)?

This will be my first build using a SATA II capable board AND a SATA
II HDD (only one HDD though). But I don't really anticipate any
problems. Sorry to say I don't usually go for cutting edge stuff, but
tend to stay a little behind the times by relying on the "tried and
true." That's one reason I'll be installing XP instead of Vista.

Larc



§§§ - Change planet to earth to reply by email - §§§

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Larc wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:36:47 -0600, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Larc wrote:

A friend wants me to build him a new system. He doesn't want to buy a
PCI Express display card since his video needs are very basic (no
games or graphics editing). But wants to be able to use the DVI
connection on his monitor.

I'm having no luck finding an Intel-based board with video out other
than regular VGA D-sub. Does one with DVI out even exist? Of course,
I'm guessing if it does it would probably cost more than a reasonably
priced motherboard AND video card with DVI out.

Thanks for your help.

Having just tried using the DVI connector (and paying considerable extra
for the cable!) I very hurriedly went BACK to my VGA connector for the
same display!

With the DVI connector, the card (actually SEVERAL cards) couldn't sense
that I had a wide-screen LCD display like the VGA connector would; and
forced me to use 1600x1200 as "default"; which made the display look
*terrible* in comparison to the incredibly sharp (and accurate) display
when running at native 1680x1050 resolution on the VGA connector.

That's a problem I don't anticipate since the monitor that will be
used is a 19" 4:3 that has 1280x1024 as its native resolution. It's
an NEC less than a year old, so I doubt it would get updated by a
friend in his 70s I'll be building the computer for.

OK ... 1280x1024 should work.
Just watch out for those wide-screen displays.
Even if you use a DVI to VGA adapter, the DVI output still can't sense
what resolution the display has. You have to *tell* it; and it has to
accept that resolution.

Strangely, when using a dual-output card with BOTH DVI and VGA, I
couldn't even *force* the card to put out 1680x1050 when connecting the
same LCD panel to the same card; while it found and ran native
resolution when connecting with the VGA connector.

Personally, I think that's a bug in the card-driver software; but it
might be something deliberate.

In any case, I have *NO* complaints about the resolution and clarity
using the VGA connector. With the 20.1" LCD panel, it's far clearer and
with perfect alignment (and thus far easier on the eye) compared to my
old 21" monitors which are now resigned to the wife's computer (which
she rarely uses).

Happy New Year!

Same thing back at you.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

In message

wrote:

I think he'll be ok as long as XP recognizes his drives.....not sure
if it will have drivers for all Sata II drives, especially if he
wants to set the system up in RAID 0 or RAID 1. My pc's all have RAID
set ups and I HAD to install drivers during O.S. set up. Just wanted
him to be prepared if he uses the board he mentioned. Have you had
any problems installing XP without loading drivers with SATA II drives
or have you been leaving the jumper on the SATA drives to keep them
set for Sata I (150 gbs)?

You could always slipstream the drivers...

In message Frank McCoy
wrote:

With the DVI connector, the card (actually SEVERAL cards) couldn't sense
that I had a wide-screen LCD display like the VGA connector would; and
forced me to use 1600x1200 as "default"; which made the display look
*terrible* in comparison to the incredibly sharp (and accurate) display
when running at native 1680x1050 resolution on the VGA connector.

Any chance you swapped DVI cables, and/or tried different monitors?

I've got several monitors here on DVI cables, and have never seen a case
where the correct settings couldn't be read from the monitor.

The picture quality is substantially better, measured in blind testing
(where I didn't know which input was being used), but that likely
depends largely on the quality of analog to digital components used by
the monitor itself, I couldn't see a difference at all on my $1000+
Dell, but on the sub-$300 panels, VGA was frankly, horrible.

On Jan 1, 7:27 pm, DevilsPGD wrote:
In message


wrote:
I think he'll be ok as long as XP recognizes his drives.....not sure
if it will have drivers for all Sata II drives, especially if he
wants to set the system up in RAID 0 or RAID 1. My pc's all have RAID
set ups and I HAD to install drivers during O.S. set up. Just wanted
him to be prepared if he uses the board he mentioned. Have you had
any problems installing XP without loading drivers with SATA II drives
or have you been leaving the jumper on the SATA drives to keep them
set for Sata I (150 gbs)?

You could always slipstream the drivers...

I read a little about slipstreaming the drivers during the
installation of the O.S...........if I ever need to do that I think
I'll need you to do it for me!

newnerd

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt DevilsPGD
wrote:

In message Frank McCoy
wrote:

With the DVI connector, the card (actually SEVERAL cards) couldn't sense
that I had a wide-screen LCD display like the VGA connector would; and
forced me to use 1600x1200 as "default"; which made the display look
*terrible* in comparison to the incredibly sharp (and accurate) display
when running at native 1680x1050 resolution on the VGA connector.

Any chance you swapped DVI cables, and/or tried different monitors?

Three different (all ATI) adapters, two different computers, a DVI/DVI
cable, a DVI/VGA cable, and a DVI-to-VGA adapter. In all cases, with
the DVI cable or adapter in place, none of them could even be SET to
anything other than standard 4:3 resolutions. The same cards (except
the DVI-Only one work just fine with a VGA/VGA connector to the card.

That's whether I go DVI/DVI, DVI/VGA, or VGA/DVI. They won't work with
the wide-screen LCD panel, while they WILL work with VGA/VGA cable.

Of course, I only have *one* LCD panel; but the thing was pretty
consistent; whether I made the DVI/VGA adaption on the computer or
monitor end. I also only had ATI cards to try. No other cards in my
stock are late enough to support anything except CRT monitors.

DVI/VGA (of course) works just FINE on my old 21" CRT monitors; but
they're not wide-screen. The wide-screen just doesn't show up as an
option; and the monitors don't show up as plug-and-play (even though
they are) unless I specifically install a driver for them.

I've got several monitors here on DVI cables, and have never seen a case
where the correct settings couldn't be read from the monitor.

The picture quality is substantially better, measured in blind testing
(where I didn't know which input was being used), but that likely
depends largely on the quality of analog to digital components used by
the monitor itself, I couldn't see a difference at all on my $1000+
Dell, but on the sub-$300 panels, VGA was frankly, horrible.

Hmm ... MINE cost only $200, in a "Black Friday Special" over a year
ago. But it looks *GREAT* with VGA connectors. FAR better than the
(really good, actually) 21" monitors ever did.

I suspect you're right though about the monitor quality making a huge
difference. I guess I got lucky.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

On Jan 1, 7:16 pm, Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Larc wrote:



On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:36:47 -0600, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Larc wrote:

A friend wants me to build him a new system. He doesn't want to buy a
PCI Express display card since his video needs are very basic (no
games or graphics editing). But wants to be able to use the DVI
connection on his monitor.

I'm having no luck finding an Intel-based board with video out other
than regular VGA D-sub. Does one with DVI out even exist? Of course,
I'm guessing if it does it would probably cost more than a reasonably
priced motherboard AND video card with DVI out.

Thanks for your help.

Having just tried using the DVI connector (and paying considerable extra
for the cable!) I very hurriedly went BACK to my VGA connector for the
same display!

With the DVI connector, the card (actually SEVERAL cards) couldn't sense
that I had a wide-screen LCD display like the VGA connector would; and
forced me to use 1600x1200 as "default"; which made the display look
*terrible* in comparison to the incredibly sharp (and accurate) display
when running at native 1680x1050 resolution on the VGA connector.

That's a problem I don't anticipate since the monitor that will be
used is a 19" 4:3 that has 1280x1024 as its native resolution. It's
an NEC less than a year old, so I doubt it would get updated by a
friend in his 70s I'll be building the computer for.

OK ... 1280x1024 should work.
Just watch out for those wide-screen displays.
Even if you use a DVI to VGA adapter, the DVI output still can't sense
what resolution the display has. You have to *tell* it; and it has to
accept that resolution.

Strangely, when using a dual-output card with BOTH DVI and VGA, I
couldn't even *force* the card to put out 1680x1050 when connecting the
same LCD panel to the same card; while it found and ran native
resolution when connecting with the VGA connector.

Personally, I think that's a bug in the card-driver software; but it
might be something deliberate.

In any case, I have *NO* complaints about the resolution and clarity
using the VGA connector. With the 20.1" LCD panel, it's far clearer and
with perfect alignment (and thus far easier on the eye) compared to my
old 21" monitors which are now resigned to the wife's computer (which
she rarely uses).

Happy New Year!

Same thing back at you.

--
_____
/ ' / (tm)
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

Hello Frank:
I too noticed an improvement in the picture quality, especially
video of sporting events, when I went to a DVI-D input on the
monitor. Usually if the graphics card doesn't allow you to set the
native resolution of the monitor it can be fixed by downloading and
installing the latest drivers compatible with your O.S..

newnerd

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt wrote:

On Jan 1, 7:16 pm, Frank McCoy wrote:
In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Larc wrote:



On Tue, 01 Jan 2008 12:36:47 -0600, Frank McCoy
wrote:

In alt.comp.hardware.pc-homebuilt Larc wrote:

A friend wants me to build him a new system. He doesn't want to buy a
PCI Express display card since his video needs are very basic (no
games or graphics editing). But wants to be able to use the DVI
connection on his monitor.

I'm having no luck finding an Intel-based board with video out other
than regular VGA D-sub. Does one with DVI out even exist? Of course,
I'm guessing if it does it would probably cost more than a reasonably
priced motherboard AND video card with DVI out.

Thanks for your help.

Having just tried using the DVI connector (and paying considerable extra
for the cable!) I very hurriedly went BACK to my VGA connector for the
same display!

With the DVI connector, the card (actually SEVERAL cards) couldn't sense
that I had a wide-screen LCD display like the VGA connector would; and
forced me to use 1600x1200 as "default"; which made the display look
*terrible* in comparison to the incredibly sharp (and accurate) display
when running at native 1680x1050 resolution on the VGA connector.

That's a problem I don't anticipate since the monitor that will be
used is a 19" 4:3 that has 1280x1024 as its native resolution. It's
an NEC less than a year old, so I doubt it would get updated by a
friend in his 70s I'll be building the computer for.

OK ... 1280x1024 should work.
Just watch out for those wide-screen displays.
Even if you use a DVI to VGA adapter, the DVI output still can't sense
what resolution the display has. You have to *tell* it; and it has to
accept that resolution.

Strangely, when using a dual-output card with BOTH DVI and VGA, I
couldn't even *force* the card to put out 1680x1050 when connecting the
same LCD panel to the same card; while it found and ran native
resolution when connecting with the VGA connector.

Personally, I think that's a bug in the card-driver software; but it
might be something deliberate.

In any case, I have *NO* complaints about the resolution and clarity
using the VGA connector. With the 20.1" LCD panel, it's far clearer and
with perfect alignment (and thus far easier on the eye) compared to my
old 21" monitors which are now resigned to the wife's computer (which
she rarely uses).

Happy New Year!

Same thing back at you.


Hello Frank:
I too noticed an improvement in the picture quality, especially
video of sporting events, when I went to a DVI-D input on the
monitor. Usually if the graphics card doesn't allow you to set the
native resolution of the monitor it can be fixed by downloading and
installing the latest drivers compatible with your O.S..

Except I *did* download the latest drivers.
Without them, they wouldn't run the monitor even with VGA connectors.
With the latest drivers, they ran fine with VGA, but not DVI.

--
_____
/ ' / â„¢
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / _/ _

In message Frank McCoy
wrote:

Three different (all ATI) adapters, two different computers, a DVI/DVI
cable, a DVI/VGA cable, and a DVI-to-VGA adapter. In all cases, with
the DVI cable or adapter in place, none of them could even be SET to
anything other than standard 4:3 resolutions. The same cards (except
the DVI-Only one work just fine with a VGA/VGA connector to the card.

Odd, I've never seen anything quite like that myself, and I've been
using DVI almost exclusively for several years now.

I've currently got a couple 24" monitors at 1920x1200, two 22" monitors
at 1680x1050, a 20" at 1680x1050, plus three non-widescreen LCDs.

In all cases, DVI cables are used, and in all cases the system can pull
the correct resolution (in no cases are larger resolutions shown as
options, unless I go to show all available resolutions)

A range of video cards, mostly NVidia, three ATIs and I believe an
onboard Intel video adapter in a box we tried for one of the kids.

So I've had good luck with DVI reporting back monitor type and correct
resolution to the system.