Hello again,

The second port on my GeForce2 MX has decided to quit working.  Two weekends ago I 
re-moved my dual boot (W2K/WinME - upgraded from a single Win98 installation) option 
by starting over (clean W2K install) with a bigger HD.  And now I have no evidence to 
back up what I said in my original post.  I do not know if I screwed up the second 
port, it had something to do with WinME/W2K drivers or all of the above.
It was my mistake in not verifying my video card's abilities before publishing it to 
this thread.
I DO now know that it is extremely possible that I was talking out of my a... since I 
can only find info that supports Andrew Jenkins' statement of W2K's limitations with 
one GPU driving a dual-port card.  
So (eating crow),.. I say 'nay', one cannot actually change the individual resolutions 
of two monitors driven by a single, dual-pipeline chipset video card within Windows 
2000.  You, Andrew Jenkins, are most correct in your advise to Robbi Bittler.

Andrew W. Riley III
Talon Instruments
150 East Arrow Highway
San Dimas, California  91773
(909) 599-0690 [voice]
(909) 599-6529 [fax]

-----Original Message-----
From: TSListServer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On Behalf Of Andrew J 
Sent: Tuesday, February 20, 2001 9:09 AM
To: Multiple recipients of list proteledausers
Subject: Re: [PROTEL EDA USERS]: Eating Crow (was: RE: having W2k installed, can I 

On 07:28 AM 2/20/01 -0800, Andrew W. Riley III said:

I never saw my post here or at work even though Outlook has it in my 'sent' folder.


Regrettably, I think that's been the case for many of us. The list server (or 
apparently its host systems)  has been acting quite particular (though not apparently 
selective in any identifiable way) about which messages get thru and which don't, to 
the frustration of many, including myself.

Frankly, for me, it's gotten so bad that I don't know whether I should instigate or 
respond to most anything anymore, because I am not sure that it will get sent to the 
group, which group members will actually see it,  or whether anything will actually 
get resolved as a result of my efforts, to my benefit or anyone else's. 

The thread to which  which you and I are responding is just one example. In response 
to an in-preparation-for-specification-of-a-new-computer-system query that Robbi 
Bittler made, regarding independent screen resolution configuration for dual-monitors 
using a single card solution w/in W2k, one respondent said authoritatively that it was 
possible (Matrox G400 dual-pipeline, single chipset), and two (myself included) 
responded that it was essentially not possible using most comnbinatorial video 
solutions. For all intents and purposes, the thread was simply dropped, at least from 
both of my locations, as I received no further mail on the subject at either until 

I mean, what's the point of explaining or detailing some process, asking a question, 
or answering same, only to have it vanish into nether-space? I don't know about the 
rest you, but I need some sort of acknowledgement (agreement, disagreement, 
explanation, counter-query, simple nod, flip-o-dee-bird, etc...anything but routine 
dead silence) so that I can confirm that I'm not just speaking to myself and the void. 
Otherwise, what's the point to having these groups? I don't think that it's meant to 
provide a forum for hearing ourselves "speak", or if it is, then it should be torn 
down, as a mirror costs a great deal less, and at least provides near real-time 

BTW, assuming that you actually see this message, (toss of a coin?), and since the 
thread (Dual-head limitations) was left dangling...What IS the outcome, yay or nay? 
Can one actually change the individual resolutions of  two monitors driven by a 
single, dual-pipeline chipset video card within Windows 2000, or was it actually 
incorrect advise to Robbi Bittler, ie, are the published limitations accurate? 

Original participants speak? 



Andrew J Jenkins. NCMR @ NASA-GRC

The opinions expressed herein are soley mine and do not represent the views
of my employer, nor the views of its employer. This email and its content may 
not be redistributed to any third party for any reason without first securing a 
signed authorization from the author. Failure to abide by these terms may 
result in legal remediation against the offending party, at the sole discretion 
of the author. This is not public domain information. Standard commercial-
use disclaimers apply. Commercial use requires author approval.  If you cannot
abide by the full aspect of this disclaimer, immediately delete the message, 
as you have no rights to its contents. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
*  This message sent by: PROTEL EDA USERS MAILING LIST
*  Use the "reply" command in your email program to
*  respond to this message.
*  To unsubscribe from this mailing list use the form at
*  the Association web site. You will need to give the same
*  email address you originally used to subscribe (do not
*  give an alias unless it was used to subscribe).
*  Visit http://www.techservinc.com/protelusers/subscrib.html
*  to unsubscribe or to subscribe a new email address.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *


To leave the EDAFORUM discussion list, send a email with
'leave edaforum' in the body to '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'

More Information : http://www.dolist.net

Reply via email to