Sony VAIO PCV-RX755 doesn't detect any non 4:3 or 5:4 resolutions

[LloydLynx]

I have this old VAIO from 2002 and I used the factory restore disks to bring it back to it's original Windows XP installation. The hardware is all stock just as it was when it was new. The issue I'm having is that it has a very limited selection of resolutions to choose from(800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 60hz and 75hz available). This happens both connected to my 1440x900 monitor or my 1080p TV, both via VGA. It has SiS 650 onboard graphics with 32mb shared video memory. I wouldn't expect it to do anything crazy like 1920x1080, but it should at least be fully capable of outputting 1440x900.

 

There is a separate SiS control panel, but it's just stuff about gamma and color calibration, nothing useful for me. I would think the factory disks would come with working drivers, but just in case, I got the latest drivers from the SiS website(2006) which added 1280x720 as an option and moved around some SiS control panel items, but still didn't let me select the native resolution. I System Restored it back to the original drivers because I want this to be as stock as possible.

 

I put in a GeForce 4 MX440 just to see what would happen. I did get all available resolution so I could set it to 1440x900, but some of the Sony software didn't like the GeForce. Having the old Sony software, and the hardware in factory form, was the whole point of this restoration project, so back to the SiS graphics.

 

Another thing I should mention, I used two different known good VGA cables for the monitor and TV.

[Bombastinator]

52 minutes ago, LloydLynx said:

I have this old VAIO from 2002 and I used the factory restore disks to bring it back to it's original Windows XP installation. The hardware is all stock just as it was when it was new. The issue I'm having is that it has a very limited selection of resolutions to choose from(800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 60hz and 75hz available). This happens both connected to my 1440x900 monitor or my 1080p TV, both via VGA. It has SiS 650 onboard graphics with 32mb shared video memory. I wouldn't expect it to do anything crazy like 1920x1080, but it should at least be fully capable of outputting 1440x900.

 

There is a separate SiS control panel, but it's just stuff about gamma and color calibration, nothing useful for me. I would think the factory disks would come with working drivers, but just in case, I got the latest drivers from the SiS website(2006) which added 1280x720 as an option and moved around some SiS control panel items, but still didn't let me select the native resolution. I System Restored it back to the original drivers because I want this to be as stock as possible.

 

I put in a GeForce 4 MX440 just to see what would happen. I did get all available resolution so I could set it to 1440x900, but some of the Sony software didn't like the GeForce. Having the old Sony software, and the hardware in factory form, was the whole point of this restoration project, so back to the SiS graphics.

 

Another thing I should mention, I used two different known good VGA cables for the monitor and TV.

The monitor thing is pretty standard for laptops of the period. It probably simply doesn’t have the grunt to push 1400 anything let alone 1920.  1080p was unthinkably large then.  Not something regular people even used. 1280 seems to be as much as it can push and it may pull tricks to do even that.  There was a time when 640x480 was massive.

[LloydLynx]

1 minute ago, Bombastinator said:

The monitor thing is pretty standard for laptops of the period. It probably simply doesn’t have the grunt to push 1400 anything let alone 1920.  1080p was unthinkably large then.  Not something regular people even used. 1280 seems to be as much as it can push and it may pull tricks to do even that.  

I would think 1440x900 should be fine because it multiplies to a lower number than 1280x1024, and 1280x1024 runs perfectly smooth.

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, LloydLynx said:

I would think 1440x900 should be fine because it multiplies to a lower number than 1280x1024, and 1280x1024 runs perfectly smooth.

Doesn’t always work that way though.  It may just run past the max

[flibberdipper]

I wouldn't doubt if it has the same nonsense as the 82865G (or if you prefer, Intel EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEM Graphics 2) in my OptiPlex where on Windows it's limited to those resolutions for some reason or another. Had the same thing where it would only allow 4:3/5:4 up to 1280x1024, but popping Xubuntu on it allowed me to run all the way up to 1080p where it did just fine.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

I wouldn't doubt if it has the same nonsense as the 82865G (or if you prefer, Intel EXTREEEEEEEEEEEEM Graphics 2) in my OptiPlex where on Windows it's limited to those resolutions for some reason or another. Had the same thing where it would only allow 4:3/5:4 up to 1280x1024, but popping Xubuntu on it allowed me to run all the way up to 1080p where it did just fine.

Part of the issue is there was a different measurement system.  There was vga, xga, wuxga, etc.. the p thing hadn’t happened yet.  Each of those odd ball looking resolutions will have a letter combo that matches it.  You might be able to get 1400x900 on a Linux of the period.  

Edited June 23, 2021 by Bombastinator

[flibberdipper]

5 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Part of the issue is there was a different measurement system.  There was vga, xga, wuxga, etc.. the p thing hadn’t happened yet.  Each of those odd ball looking resolutions will have a letter combo that matches it.  You might be able to get 1400x900 on a Linux of the period.  

Pixels are pixels. What we dumb humans abbreviate them to has nothing to do with the chips/driver supporting them lol

 

If the shorthand versions were the issue, things like VooDoo 3's and ATI RAGE cards wouldn't support 1080p (at least for 2D), but yet they sure can.

[Bombastinator]

37 minutes ago, flibberdipper said:

Pixels are pixels. What we dumb humans abbreviate them to has nothing to do with the chips/driver supporting them lol

 

If the shorthand versions were the issue, things like VooDoo 3's and ATI RAGE cards wouldn't support 1080p (at least for 2D), but yet they sure can.

But this is a business laptop not a video card.  It has a video card IN it sort of, but it’s nothing like even an ATIRage. Like I said, you want to run a Unix on it it could be possible because depending on the app it dealt with video in a totally different way.

[LloydLynx]

Just now, Bombastinator said:

But this is a business laptop not a video card.

It's not a business laptop, it's a home desktop tower. Would that make a difference?

pictures

[Bombastinator]

5 minutes ago, LloydLynx said:

It's not a business laptop, it's a home desktop tower. Would that make a difference?

pictures

Someone said it was a laptop I thought.  Maybe. It allows cards to be put in it and means the OS and stuff are more likely to be standard. WinXP is still fundamentally winXP though.

 

Ah.  I see what it is.  I saw VAIO and I assumed laptop. 

[flibberdipper]

12 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

But this is a business laptop not a video card.  It has a video card IN it sort of, but it’s nothing like even an ATIRage. Like I said, you want to run a Unix on it it could be possible because depending on the app it dealt with video in a totally different way.

That's a pretty long-ass stretch. If being a laptop had anything to do with... well, anything, my ProSignia 165 (y'know, a more or less business/workplace focused wannabe desktop replacement laptop with a mobile RAGE GPU) still wouldn't be able to do anything other than the driver-limited resolutions.