Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23
  1. #1
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Is there a way to enlarge the tray icons?

    Chuck Billow
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Leif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    14,010
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    I suspect this is the same question you are asking in <post:=666,431>post 666,431</post:> ?

    Try <!post=size of icons in Systray (Win XP Pro (SP2)),640084>size of icons in Systray (Win XP Pro (SP2))<!/post> .

  3. #3
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Chuck,
    Does this query mean that my suggestion for changing tray icon size in <post#=666,486>post 666,486</post#> does not work for your setup ?

    Paul

  4. #4
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Paul:

    That woks with desktop icons, but not systray icons, I don't think.

    Regards,
    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  5. #5
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Leif:

    I'm sorry... thanks.

    Regards,
    Chuck Billow
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  6. #6
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Chuck,

    Interesting!
    That procedure changes the the systray icons on my system. Perhaps you have some other appearance setting that overrides the effect.

    Paul

  7. #7
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Paul:

    I dunno, but Leif's reference above (reminding me we had discussed this once already) to adjust the caption buttons DOES work for me.

    I'm still wondering why the analog and DIV res settings couldn't be closer to the same... maybe the "optimums" might be different, but the actual eres settings... I saw an ad today from Tiger Direct for a 46" HDTV, with 1920x1080 resolution and 80100:1 contrast... My 22"'s optimal is 1680x1050... so I more than double the screen size, but only up the res by about 20%...

    I wonder if THEN the damn dots would be easir to see?! :-)

    Regards,
    Chuck Billow
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  8. #8
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Chuck,
    I have not previously come upon the difference in analog/digital settings that you describe, so I would have to do a bit of looking to trace that one down.
    This is almost certainly a video card/driver issue and, in principle, that combination should be able to set almost any value for the number of pixels in a row or column. There is obviously an upper limit to the resolution settings since the card has a max clock rate, but other than that I just don't know why the selections are limited. I will be away from home for about a week, but when I get some time I will look into it.

    Paul

  9. #9
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Paul:

    I've not had or seen any card with unlimited (continuous?) Resolution settings; all the cards I've dealt with only set to may 4-5, and I sure don't know why the difference between DIV and analog.

    But I do know it's there...

    I also don't know that much about resolutions, but up to about 1280 x 960, everything seems to just adjust in size. But after that -- 1280x1024 and above, the fonts not only get smaller, but fainter as well, so that by the time you reach the 1680x1050, the font isn't only smaller, but also a good deal fainter. And it's a pretty sudden shift.

    By that point, it's a combination of visual difficulty and frustration that join forces.

    I understand that the NVIDIA FX 5500 is far from the best card. If I need something else, I can deal with that. But at this point I realize that I sure as heck need to figure out more of what I'm dealing with, or I'd just be throwing good money after bad...

    Regards,
    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  10. #10
    Plutonium Lounger Leif's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    U.K.
    Posts
    14,010
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Chuck, my understanding:

    The reason you are ‘suffering’ this effect is due to the problem with digital screens - LCD etc - having to average the number of pixels.

    Say your screen has a width resolution of 1280 and you want to draw a line 5 pixels wide.

    With a setting of 800, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/800 x 5 pixels = 8.00; rounded to 8
    With a setting of 1024, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1024 x 5 pixels = 6.25; rounded to 6
    With a setting of 1088, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1088 x 5 pixels = 5.88; rounded to 6
    With a setting of 1152, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1152 x 5 pixels = 5.55; rounded to 6
    With a setting of 1280, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1280 x 5 pixels = 5.00; rounded to 5

    So, with 5 different settings, you can get 3 different line widths. The step from 800 to 1024 reduces the line width by 25%, but the next step change, from 1152 to 1280, is only 17%
    Make sense so far?

    But with thinner lines - for example with fine text - there are less steps available. With a 1 pixel line:

    With a setting of 800, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/800 x 1 pixel = 1.60; rounded to 2
    With a setting of 1024, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1024 x 1 pixel = 1.25; rounded to 1
    With a setting of 1088, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1088 x 1 pixel = 1.17; rounded to 1
    With a setting of 1152, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1152 x 1 pixel = 1.11; rounded to 1
    With a setting of 1280, the screen will attempt to draw 1280/1280 x 1 pixel = 1.00; rounded to 1

    So there is only one step, and it reduces the line width by 50%!

    The big problem comes with small text. All of a sudden the dot over an ‘I’ for example, will switch from 2 pixels to 1. (See attachment for a very basic explanation.) I believe that programs such as ‘Cleartype’ attempt to overcome this, presumably by estimating what should be displayed in context with the font and letter size.

    Getting a bigger monitor with the same resolution doesn’t help - it is equivalent to putting your nose closer to the screen. What I think you want - and what I certainly want - is the same size monitor, but with higher resolution. Currently I have a 19” LCD with a maximum resolution of 1280 x 1024, but set to 1024 x 768 - because that gives me icons etc with a size I am comfortable with. (Setting my display to 1280 x 1024 is much clearer, but too small!) What I am waiting for is technology to improve to the point that I can get my 19” monitor with a maximum resolution of, say, 2048 x 1536 (2 * 1024 x 2 * 768) then everything would be crystal clear.

    Until that time, for maximum user-friendly affordable resolution, I suspect that a large, high definition CRT monitor may be better - but you need the desk space. See this overview at about.com which will probably explain this, and all I've written above, better than me!
    Attached Images Attached Images
    • File Type: gif x.gif (25.0 KB, 0 views)

  11. #11
    Plutonium Lounger
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    10,550
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 7 Times in 7 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Leif,

    > I believe that programs such as ‘Cleartype’ attempt to overcome this, presumably by estimating what should be displayed in context with the font and letter size.

    Cleartype is more clever than that. It uses the fact that each pixel really has three separate sub-pixels, one for each primary colour, and it manipulates the colours at the edges to use the right arrangement of these coloured dots to get the optimum size. This is why Cleartype text sometimes shows coloured edges, especially on things like lllll.

    StuartR

  12. #12
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Chuck,
    You are addressing several issues in your experimentation and they include your preference/need to adjust your displayed data to your visual acuity, the performance of your Samsung display at various resolutions and the compatibility of your video card to drive your display. It is difficult to separate these in some of your postings.

    With regards to the display, its native resolution is 1680x1054. Feeding it data at ANY other resolution will produce less than optimum visual performance as Leif pointed out in his posting. There is one exception. That exception is where you display lower resolution formats by using only a portion of the available pixels. The image will be rock solid and clear, but the size of the text and icons will be that dictated by the pixel pitch of the display, which you have concluded is too small so this is not an option for you. If you want a lower resolution version of your data to fill your display then that data has to be scaled and since we have an integer number of pixels and non integer (usually) scaling factors then funny results are to be expected - again, see Leif's numbers. There are good scaling engines and there are poor ones and they all work better for natural images than for text. Now where is the scaling engine? In the DVI specification, scaling is the responsibility of the monitor! Yet, many video cards also have scalars. If the monitor scalar does not support a requested pixel format, the graphics controller may and the standard allows for that. So my best guess is that on some of your requested formats the monitor is doing the scaling and on others the graphics controller is scaling and this may be why there are different formats available in analog and digital modes.

    If your display is producing a faint image at its native resolution with a DVI digital connection, then almost certainly you have a driver/video card problem. The same condition with an analog connection could be a problem in either the display or the video card.

    Why not try using the display in its native resolution (bright, solid image), use all of the settings to increase the font size, icon size, toolbar size, sys tray size etc in Windows. Then in you applications use their controls (if they are there) to make them comfortable for viewing and see if that works or report where it breaks down.

    Basically your want a large pixel size display. That, combined with the amount of information you want on the screen, will dictate the physical size of the display.

    Paul

  13. #13
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Stuart/Leif/Paul:

    I think I get (kinda) from "layman's" perspective, what you're saying. I grok the problematic of the math involved with the dots, division or multiplication of same, and how they consequently "paint" to the screen.

    But I'm not seeing (or understanding) the answer to my one question:

    Assuming all the info, if I have a "box", and that box is 15", and has 640x480 pixels, then, if I use that same res on a box that's 19", the dots get bigger, and I cconsequently move, as was my case, to a 1024x768 res.

    So why, if I move to a, say, 30" box, from my current 22" one, and do not adjust the res, wouldn't the "dots" get bigger once again? I understand that clarity my definitely come into play, but let's set that aside for the moment, for, as Paul pointed out, that could be a video card issue as well.

    The pixel size, relative to the screen size, tells me how big my images are going to be, yes? If I switch to a 640x480 res, everything gets humungus and unable to all fit on the screen without scrolling.. So, if I kept a 1680x1050 res, but moved to a 30" screen (not that I can AFFORD to do that!), wouldn't the same process occur? And then I could/would match the right video card to same to account for image sharpness?

    When I look at plasma TVs, they can be 40" across, and still be sharp.

    What the heck am I missing here?

    Regards,
    Chuck Billow
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

  14. #14
    4 Star Lounger
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cape Cod, Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    408
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Chuck,
    "So why, if I move to a, say, 30" box, from my current 22" one, and do not adjust the res, wouldn't the "dots" get bigger once again? I understand that clarity my definitely come into play, but let's set that aside for the moment, for, as Paul pointed out, that could be a video card issue as well."

    You are exactly right ! With the same native resolution for the 22" and the 30" displays, the 30" display would have bigger pixels and would be more easily read by someone with less visual acuity.
    SO the trick when looking for a display to purchase is to decide (or know or determine) what pixel pitch matches your visual acuity at your comfortable viewing distance. That number multiplied by the number of columns and by the number of rows will give you the active display size ( width and height). The problem is that display cost scales much more strongly with the glass size than with the number of pixels so the practical trend is to add more pixels when the glass size is increased rather than keeping the pixel count static. This makes for a higher function display at a higher cost rather than a similar function display at higher cost.

    So look at pixel pitch and choose, in your case, on the high side and then buy the largest physical size they make at that pixel pitch.

    Paul

  15. #15
    Uranium Lounger CWBillow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Las Vegas, NV USA
    Posts
    6,371
    Thanks
    78
    Thanked 12 Times in 11 Posts

    Re: Tray Icon Size (WinXP SP-2)

    Paul:

    When you speak of "pixel pitch", is this the ".28" you see (for some screens)?

    And so then would the scenario outlined above:
    >>
    I saw an ad today from Tiger Direct for a 46" HDTV, with 1920x1080 resolution and 80100:1 contrast... My 22"'s optimal is 1680x1050
    <<

    Would the calc I outlined hold true here: that comparable resolutions would be for mine (at 1680x1050) to be 46", it would then have a (46/22*1680x1050) 3500x2200 to be the "same"? And that NOT being the case, the 46" would have larger images proportionally?

    Does that math work? Or, similarly, a 19" at 800x600 would have 925x700 in a 22" widescreen (kinda, give or take)?

    And if all that works, why/how would a 46" HDTV "only" have 1920x1080?

    Regards,
    Chuck
    -------------------------------------------------
    "Good judgment comes from experience, and experience - well, that comes from poor judgment."

    ~ A(lan) A(lexander) Milne (1882-1956)- "House at Pooh Corner"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •