Jump to content

Welcome to MSFN Forum
Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to create topics, post replies to existing threads, give reputation to your fellow members, get your own private messenger, post status updates, manage your profile and so much more. This message will be removed once you have signed in.
Login to Account Create an Account


Photo

Unable to set 32 bit color depth.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
27 replies to this topic

#1
Nexus_06

Nexus_06

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
It's been along time since I used Windows 98SE, but I've installed it again on my legacy machine on an extra HD so I can play some of my old games.

I have a bit of a problem, I cannot set 32 bit color depth even though it's available through the video settings and also the nvidia taskbar icon. I just get a black screen, and it doesn't revert after 15 seconds. I have to go into safe mode and reset it. Is it a problem with the drivers or Windows98SE, and are there any solutions anyone knows to this problem?

Here's a rundown of my hardware:

ASUS TUV4X Motherboard, bios 1006.002 beta, VIA 133T Apollo Pro chipset - Driver Version 5.11/5.13
Intel Pentium III-S Tualatin 1.4ghz SL6BY
1 GB Crucial RAM 2*512MB sticks 3-2-2-6 - Interleave enabled via WPCRset
BFG/NVIDIA 6600 AGP 256MB at 2X - 64MB Aperture - Driver Version 81.98
Hitachi SuperScan 814 Monitor - Driver from 2000
Creative Sound Blaster Live! Value CT4830 - Driver Version emu10k1
Maxtor Diamondmax 120GB HD
Realtek RTL8139 NIC
Plextor PX-W5224A CDRW
Lite-On LH-20A1H DVDRW

Everything works fine in Windows2000 and WIndowsXP. (Just different HD's)

As for software, I have just a few thing's installed, Diskeeper 9, Daemon Tools 3.47, CloneCD 5.3.1.4, ISOBuster 1.9.1.1, Nero 6.6.1.15D, Firefox 2.0.0.20, Java Runtime 1.6.0.7, the service pack beta4 on the forums, and most of the updates recommended by mdgx, as well as Plus!98. FFDShow, Reclock, AC3Filter and Media Player Classic are the only video related things installed. Some misc utils like process explorer and autoruns.

Edited by Nexus_06, 05 November 2011 - 06:44 AM.



How to remove advertisement from MSFN

#2
ScrewUpgrading

ScrewUpgrading

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
I'm not sure if Windows 98 is even capable of handling 32-bit color.

Have you tried reducing it to 24 bit or possibly 16 bit? How about 256 colors, does that work?

Have you tried lowering the screen resolution? Maybe you're monitor can't handle 32bit at whatever high resolution you've set it at.

Try to see if it works correctly at a lower setting such as (800x600x16 bit) first, then work you're way up. I find that 1024x768x16 bit is optimum for Windows Me (assuming you're computer is in the 866 MHz - 1 GHz range, like mine is; and about 256 - 512 Mb RAM). Any higher resolution and the icons and text is too small and it hurts my eyes. Also, it's noticeably slower when increasing to True Color (24 Bit, millions of colors).

It's not like you'll actually see a difference beyond High Color (16 bit) anyway - which is roughly 65,000 colors... whereas 15 bit is 32,000, 8 bit is 256 colors, and so on. Trust me, 16 bit is "beyond adequate" for any Windows 98 purposes. And you have it set at twice that! Kinda extreme if you ask me. Not even your 1 GHz computer will be able to handle that many colors without putting some drag on the cpu. And no, I don't mean 16 colors (that would be 4 bit.)

It's Windows 98 for crying out loud.

Oh, and another thing. Before you go experimenting with updates from MDGX, it's good to make sure that everything is in 100% working order before you tamper with your system by installing that stuff. Because then you won't know if it was mdgx's "upgrades" that caused the problem or not. I'd be very cautious about fiddling with those things. Just my opinion. If you had system restore on Windows 98, which you don't unfortunately, I'd definitely try rolling back my system to how it was before the MDGX "upgrade." Just sayin'.

To elaborate on my point concerning 32 bit on Windows 98, consider the following quote from wikipedia:

"Many modern desktop systems (Mac OS X, GNOME, KDE, Windows XP/Vista/7, etc.) offer a 32-bit color option (given a suitably modern video card), but in that context, 32-bit color refers to 24-bit TrueColor with 8 bits for an alpha channel. When switching to an 8/16/24-bit color option in those systems, generally transparency/translucency effects are disabled, and the only reduction in color depth is seen when going to 8/16-bit color. "

Furthermore,

"While some high-end graphics workstation systems and the accessories marketed toward use with such systems, as from SGI, have always used more than 8 bits per channel, such as 12 or 16 (36-bit or 48-bit color), such color depths have only worked their way into the general market more recently."

^ quoted from the article entitled "Color Depth"

Therefore, I think it's totally safe to assume that 32 bit color on Windows 98 is complete overkill. However, I may be wrong. It's always good to get a second opinion so maybe somebody can offer different advice. I don't know.

Okay, I've thought about it some more, and it definitely sounds like the problem is your monitor. If it goes black like that when switching settings, then obviously you're pushing it beyond it's limits. Assuming Windows 98, like I explained, can even handle 32 bit.

Edited by ScrewUpgrading, 05 November 2011 - 07:51 AM.


#3
Nexus_06

Nexus_06

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
My monitor was something like $2000 when it was new (21" CRT, up to 120hz refresh) it works fine in Windows 2000 and XP at those settings.

Anyways, it works perfectly fine in 98SE at 16 bit color 1600x1200/85hz, I just haven't used 98 in 10+ years. So maybe I remember it wrong being able to do 32 bit, possibly it was 24 bit color it could do at the time.

Thanks for your reply, it got me thinking about some things.

As for the upgrades they are working fine at current settings, I just wanted 24/32 bit color if possible =]

I have hundreds of games for win9x and dos I want to play again (real ones, not pirated!) so I decided to setup my legacy box for it, just getting familiar with 98 again, I'm very very experienced in 2k and above.

#4
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Therefore, I think it's totally safe to assume that 32 bit color on Windows 98 is complete overkill. However, I may be wrong.

You certainly are unless you are not bothered by the degradation of image quality that is very obvious in 16bit mode, eg, horrible banding in gradients.

OP, there is no operating system reasons why you couldn't get a true color display with win98 and since your hardware is not the issue I suggest you uninstall/reinstall your video drivers, perhaps trying a different version.

#5
ScrewUpgrading

ScrewUpgrading

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
"OP, there is no operating system reasons why you couldn't get a true color display with win98 and since your hardware is not the issue I suggest you uninstall/reinstall your video drivers, perhaps trying a different version."

Or, if it ain't broke, then don't fix it. If the OP can get 24 bit display, then that's probably as good as he will ever need to have. It's still slower than High Color 16 bit though.

"You certainly are unless you are not bothered by the degradation of image quality that is very obvious in 16bit mode, eg, horrible banding in gradients."

Hmm.... just tried switching to 24 bit mode True Color. It made all my images look much worse. It brings out every little Jpeg artifact and defect. If you're entire collection of pictures (I have over 5,000 family photos) consists entirely of lossless TIF files or uncompressed Bitmaps, sure, every picture WILL look better in true color than high color. However, it's a complete waste of hard drive space using TIF, TGA, BMP, or PNG files.

I'm not exactly sure there's dithering going on with True Color settings on Win9x, hence the term "true color," no dithering. Either way, since most people use Jpeg and not bigger-sized lossless formats for sharing pictures, there's no point in anything beyond a 16 bit or at the most 24 bit display, unless you're using photoshop. That's Just my opinion though. I still think 32 bit is completely useless for any practical Win9x purpose.

I'd settle for either 16 bit or 24.

Edited by ScrewUpgrading, 05 November 2011 - 07:15 PM.


#6
submix8c

submix8c

    Inconceivable!

  • Patrons
  • 4,192 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

My monitor was something like $2000 when it was new (21" CRT, up to 120hz refresh) it works fine in Windows 2000 and XP at those settings.

Anyways, it works perfectly fine in 98SE at 16 bit color 1600x1200/85hz, I just haven't used 98 in 10+ years. So maybe I remember it wrong being able to do 32 bit, possibly it was 24 bit color it could do at the time.

1 - Reduce to a smaller Screen Resolution
and/or
2 - Reduce the Refresh Rate (60hz is standard for somewhat "flickery" Wall-Outlet-speed Hz...)

Someday the tyrants will be unthroned... Jason "Jay" Chasteen; RIP, bro!

Posted Image


#7
ScrewUpgrading

ScrewUpgrading

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
http://en.wikipedia....ge_file_formats

"the JPEG/JFIF format, which supports 8 bits per color (red, green, blue) for a 24-bit total, producing relatively small files. When not too great, the compression does not noticeably detract from the image's quality, but JPEG files suffer generational degradation when repeatedly edited and saved."


^There you go, proof that a 32 bit display is pointless, since most of the graphics you see on the interwebs (JPEG) will only support 24 bit max. And even then, most of those pictures won't contain the full amount of millions of colors but will only use thousands.

Edited by ScrewUpgrading, 06 November 2011 - 12:53 AM.


#8
rilef

rilef

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 59 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag
You should be able to run 32-bit color on your 98SE computer, providing you have the proper 98SE drivers installed for both the video adapter card and the monitor. I've used 32-bit color on 98SE for years, since I installed a video card with memory large enough to handle it. Your 256MB video card is more than adequate to handle 32-bit color.

First, right-click on the desktop, select Properties, then Settings, then Advanced. Check the monitor tab, to ensure that Windows is using the Hitachi driver, not the Default Monitor driver. If the Hitachi driver is being used, switch to the Default Monitor. The Default Monitor may correct the problem you're having with 32-bit color. If the Default Monitor driver is being used, switch to the Hitachi Monitor driver. If the Hitachi driver is not found, or doesn't work, or Windows switches back to the Default Monitor, find and install the proper 98SE driver for your Hitachi monitor.

You indicated your Hitachi monitor driver was designed to work in Windows 2000. Is this driver also specified to work in Windows 98SE? Similarly, are your NVidia drivers specified to work in 98SE? If not, find and install the correct drivers for 98SE.


If you install new drivers, you may have to remove older drivers, first, in order to get the new drivers to work. For this purpose, I've used "Nasty File Remover" (NFR) available here:

http://majorgeeks.co...over_d3233.html

#9
ScrewUpgrading

ScrewUpgrading

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
I might be weird, but I actually prefer my background wallpapers to be 256 colors.

A true color image that is 1024 x 768 requires 2.25 MB of memory whether it's a Jpeg, BMP, or whatever.

The same size image, quantized down to 256 colors only requires 769 KB of memory. So, you're saving nearly 1.5 Mb RAM just from your wallpaper. If you make it a GIF or 8 bit PNG, it uses less disk space as well. I've found that reducing the number of colors (using Floyd Steinberg, not ordered dithering) gets rid of all the banding and gradients. The image becomes smoother looking.

That's just my own weird personal preference, and I can understand if you think it's retarded. But to me, it actually does look more pleasing that way, somewhat artistic.

Edited by ScrewUpgrading, 06 November 2011 - 12:48 AM.


#10
Foxbat

Foxbat

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 122 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I'm not sure if Windows 98 is even capable of handling 32-bit color.

snip

To elaborate on my point concerning 32 bit on Windows 98, consider the following quote from wikipedia:

"Many modern desktop systems (Mac OS X, GNOME, KDE, Windows XP/Vista/7, etc.) offer a 32-bit color option (given a suitably modern video card), but in that context, 32-bit color refers to 24-bit TrueColor with 8 bits for an alpha channel. When switching to an 8/16/24-bit color option in those systems, generally transparency/translucency effects are disabled, and the only reduction in color depth is seen when going to 8/16-bit color. "

^ quoted from the article entitled "Color Depth"

snip

Windows 98, and even windows 95, can handle 32 bit color. The word "modern" in this Wikipedia article actually refers to the 1990's and up. These OS's (and many others that are also capable of handling 32 bit) were not individually listed as that was not the purpose of the article.

#11
ScrewUpgrading

ScrewUpgrading

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
Okay, so Windows 95 can use 32 bit color, news to me. The million dollar question is, what are you going to do with an extra billion colors that you can't see anyway, and most video games use a fraction of a billion colors, same goes for all Jpegs (usually only thousands of colors) and most other formats? What's the point?

oh yeah, I forgot, it just another gimmick to rip off consumers. "Here, buy this graphics card with billion of colors, it doesn't matter if you're brain can only make out 7 million of them, it's got Billions!" Just send us your money now, or else you won't be cool and people will mock you for your un-coolness. They will call you a stupid id*** Windows 98 user who's missing out on a couple billion invisible colors.

You know what, I hope they invent something with Trillions of colors. Then everybody with 32 bit (billions of colors) won't be hip and cool anymore. Doesn't matter if the human brain can only see 7 million colors, it's the fact that I paid $900 for my graphic card that gives me bragging rights over the other mouth breathing idiots.

I really, really, really, really, hope that computers start becoming out of date in like 3 months in the near future. I'd be interested in seeing just how long people will buy into all this garbage before they finally figure out that they're slaves. Come on people, faster, faster, faster, more progress. Now now now.

#12
Nexus_06

Nexus_06

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
Ok, thanks to those folks who made useful replies, and didn't hi-jack the thread into a discussion about personal preferences and image quality arguments. ;)

I will try the default monitor, and lower the refresh rate to 60hz and see if that helps. If not I'll try some other nvidia driver versions and clean them out first with driver sweeper.

Yes the drivers are for win98, otherwise they wouldn't install or work at all.

:EDIT:

Setting the refresh rate to 60hz worked! thanks =]

Edited by Nexus_06, 06 November 2011 - 08:35 PM.


#13
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts
@ScrewUpgrading: 16 bits color can be a lot slower than 24 or 32 bits. Internally windows uses 24 bits, so a lot of bit shuffling has to be done to fit the 24 bits 8-8-8 pixels in 16 bits 5-5-5 or 5-6-5 pixels. Each time a pixel has been written to the video memory.

On the other hand, less memory have to be written when using 16 bits, so when you've got a slow bus (ISA?), 16 bits might be faster.

When bandwidth and video memory is no bottleneck, 32 bits can be even faster than 24 bits. 32 bits is actually 24 bits and a padding byte, to make each pixel address a multiple of 4. Due to architecture oddities this makes accessing pixels faster.

Edited by Mijzelf, 07 November 2011 - 05:28 AM.


#14
Nexus_06

Nexus_06

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
actually it's 24 bits color and 8 bits of alpha... but again this discussion is besides the point of the thread.

#15
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

actually it's 24 bits color and 8 bits of alpha...

<br />I don't think so. Alpha suggests transparency. What do you want to see through your monitor?

Edited by Mijzelf, 07 November 2011 - 09:43 AM.


#16
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,036 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

What do you want to see through your monitor?

Everything:
http://www.fuhh.net/...en-optical.html
Posted Image
;)

The above are fake, but the "real thing" is in production now :thumbup :
http://www.engadget....-next-week-eye/


Just imagine a flying-submarine-tank from Bacteria is after you, if it subtly approaches you from behind your screen you won't see it until it would be too late.... :ph34r:

jaclaz

#17
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts

Just imagine a flying-submarine-tank from Bacteria is after you, if it subtly approaches you from behind your screen you won't see it until it would be too late....  


I must admit that I never faced that possibility. I hope I can sleep tonight :S

#18
Nexus_06

Nexus_06

    Junior

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 82 posts
jaclaz: LOL

Mijzelf: that IS what 32 bit color is. Go look it up...

However I am not here to argue... so save the trolling for 4chan.

#19
Mijzelf

Mijzelf

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 462 posts
Trolling? That is not my intention, so I apologize when it looks like that.

About 32 bits, from Wikipedia

For each pixel, generally one byte is used for each channel while the fourth byte (if present) is being used either as an alpha channel data or simply ignored.

I know in some image formats (tiff,png) a fourth channel can be used for alpha.
But think about it, what should alpha information do in video memory (except for making you able to see the Bacterians in time)? I am convinced that it's value is simply ignored, and the only purpose for the byte is memory alignment.

#20
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

Okay, so Windows 95 can use 32 bit color, news to me. The million dollar question is, what are you going to do with an extra billion colors that you can't see anyway, and most video games use a fraction of a billion colors, same goes for all Jpegs (usually only thousands of colors) and most other formats? What's the point?

oh yeah, I forgot, it just another gimmick to rip off consumers. "Here, buy this graphics card with billion of colors, it doesn't matter if you're brain can only make out 7 million of them, it's got Billions!" Just send us your money now, or else you won't be cool and people will mock you for your un-coolness. They will call you a stupid id*** Windows 98 user who's missing out on a couple billion invisible colors.

You know what, I hope they invent something with Trillions of colors. Then everybody with 32 bit (billions of colors) won't be hip and cool anymore. Doesn't matter if the human brain can only see 7 million colors, it's the fact that I paid $900 for my graphic card that gives me bragging rights over the other mouth breathing idiots.

I really, really, really, really, hope that computers start becoming out of date in like 3 months in the near future. I'd be interested in seeing just how long people will buy into all this garbage before they finally figure out that they're slaves. Come on people, faster, faster, faster, more progress. Now now now.

FYI, 32bit color or true color which should actually be called 24bit color is not billions of colors, it's just 16777216 colors (16 millions or so) and it exactly matches what monitors are capable of doing, 256 brightness levels per primary color or 8bit per color channel.

This is not a lot of colors and it is easy to prove: for example if you want to create a black to white gradient of 1600 pixels width you've only 256 shades of grey for doing so, or in other words you are lacking 1344 colors.

This is why all applications who create gradients are resorting to the artifice of dithering as to perceptually simulate more colors than a computer screen can actually display. If they weren't doing that, most gradients would suffer from banding. And everyone who has done a bit of serious photo editing knows how severely limited true color is, as they sooner or later bump into those annoying banding issues which easily crop up using certain tools.

As for the price of graphic cards, I don't think the are related to how many colors they can display but rather to what framerate they can achieve...

Please try have some grip on your subject, especially when you go into rants like this, as all you've managed to do is make yourself look like a fool.

And apologies to the OP, for yet more "trolling" of his topic... :lol:

Edited by loblo, 08 November 2011 - 05:50 AM.


#21
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,036 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

I must admit that I never faced that possibility. I hope I can sleep tonight :S

Never underestimate the subtle difference between improbable and impossible. :ph34r:

You never can say what hides behind your monitor ;):
Spoiler


jaclaz

#22
CharlotteTheHarlot

CharlotteTheHarlot

    MSFN Master

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,054 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

Everything:
http://www.fuhh.net/...en-optical.html

jaclaz


What they need to do is build a webcam or an array of them into the back of the monitor. The monitor could then display what's behind it as wallpaper.

Something like the invisibility cloak.

... Let him who hath understanding reckon the Number Of The Beast ...


#23
jaclaz

jaclaz

    The Finder

  • Developer
  • 14,036 posts
  • OS:none specified
  • Country: Country Flag

What they need to do is build a webcam or an array of them into the back of the monitor. The monitor could then display what's behind it as wallpaper.


You seemingly missed :w00t: how we are already beyond that workaround:
http://www.engadget....-next-week-eye/

jaclaz

#24
ScrewUpgrading

ScrewUpgrading

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 285 posts
I'll rant if I feel like it, Loblo.

Have you even looked up the definition of 32 bit colors? It's billions, not millions. Don't make yourself look like a fool now.

#25
loblo

loblo

    Oldbie

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts
  • OS:ME
  • Country: Country Flag

I'll rant if I feel like it, Loblo.

Have you even looked up the definition of 32 bit colors? It's billions, not millions. Don't make yourself look like a fool now.

We're not speaking about high dynamic range images at 32bit color per channel here are we?

We're speaking about the so-called true color mode which is the best your computer display can achieve, and that's 16 million or so colors... ;)




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users



How to remove advertisement from MSFN