Take a look at our
ThinkPads.com HOME PAGE
For those who might want to contribute to the blog, start here: Editors Alley Topic
Then contact Bill with a Private Message

Upgrade t43 xga screen to sxga (or other)

T4x series specific matters only
Message
Author
dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#31 Post by dedmeet » Sat Jul 21, 2007 9:39 pm

Troels wrote:Could you run a program like PC Wizard to determine, what the screen is detected as?
http://www.cpuid.com/pcwizard.php

When the program is launched, click the "Video" icon -> "Monitor Type" and check that it seems correct, with the correct detection of display type and part no.; it should say N150U3-L01 or very similar to this, somehwere.

What happens when you change resolution to something lower in display properties?

Edit: Ah, you're running Linux? Hmmm...
Hi, ran the pcwizard software.

No mention anywhere of the model number you suggest.

Interestingly, reports the panel is 1024x768


General Information :
Product ID : MS_0003
Manufacture : 2002
Video Input Type : Digital in 0.7/0.3v
Aspect Ratio : 16:10
Gamma Factor : 3.55
DPMS Active-Off : Yes
DPMS Suspend : Yes
DPMS Standby : Yes
EDID version : 1.3

Features :
Maximum Resolution : 1920 x 1200 @ 59 Hz

Video Modes Supported :
Mode : 720 x 400 @ 70 Hz
Mode : 640 x 480 @ 75 Hz
Mode : 1024 x 768 @ 87 Hz interlaced

I am getting the feeling that the issue here is the bios that is hardcoded to the resolutions mentioned above. It is not reading the display via edid.

I tried powerstrip, to read the edid, and it fails to get any info.

COuld this possibly be a faulty display I got ?

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#32 Post by NathanA » Sun Jul 22, 2007 1:38 am

This is a very interesting thread. :)

Okay, looking at the PC Wizard results and at your camera pictures, I think I have an inkling of an idea of what is going on, at least indirectly. I don't have any idea what is actually directly causing this, but perhaps if I throw something out there it will start other people's wheels turning.

First, even before I saw the posted PC Wizard information, I noticed in the pictures that you provided that it wasn't JUST a simple matter of part of the image being cut off. Initially, based on your description, I thought that you meant that anything beyong the gray line that you drew in Paint on your first posted screenshot was not displaying on the screen. However, the pictures you took with your camera show that the entire screen is being used up; there isn't a part of the screen that is "unpainted." The only way that this could be is if the image that IS making it onto your screen is being STRETCHED horizontally. And I think this is exactly what is happening! Didn't anyone else here notice that in the part that IS being displayed, the proportions look completely wrong? Look especially at the IBM boot-up logo.

The information provided by PC Wizard gives us some more clues, and in fact I think backs up this theory. First, please just ignore the "Video Modes Supported" section; on my T60p's UXGA display, it shows the same thing (1024x768 is the last listed resolution), even though it obviously has a greater range of supported resolutions than that pitiful list. What is more important, I think, is the "Maximum Resolution" listed. This should not reflect the maximum resolution supported by your video chipset, but the max. supported by the panel!

On mine, Aspect Ratio shows 4:3 and Maximum Resolution says 1600x1200 (the native resolution of the panel). Yours, on the other hand, shows an Aspect Ratio of 16:10 and a Maximum Resolution of 1920x1200! Your graphics chipset for some reason thinks that your panel is a widescreen WUXGA panel!

This would completely explain everything. It would explain both why things are being stretched out and why a part of the image is getting cut off: it's trying to take a 1600x1200 image and "stretch" it out to fit a 1920x1200 screen, because that's how many pixels the graphics subsystem thinks you have. The difference between 1920 and 1600 is 320 pixels in width, and if you create a 320-pixel-wide bitmap, it looks to be about the size of the area of your desktop that is getting cut off.

Now, WHY the integrated Intel graphics thinks that your UXGA panel is really WUXGA, I have no idea; I don't know enough about the way the graphics system probes the panel or how it is supposed to interpret the results or any of that. However, some part of that whole process is broken on your machine. I noticed that PC Wizard did not supply a manufacturer ID for your screen and that it calls the screen model an "MS_0003". On my T60p's IDTech UXGA display, the values that show are "N150U3-L01" for Manufacturer, and "LEN4046" for Product. It's also possible on some older IDTech displays that IBM changed the vendor and model information that the panel reports to something else; the same model panel in a T42p reports "IBM" for manufacturer and "IBM1A5D" for product even though all of the other status show the same values as my T60p. Either way you look at it, MS_0003 is not a valid ID for this panel, so either the Intel chip isn't getting a good response from the panel or it is not faithfully reporting back to PC Wizard what the panel told it about itself.

It COULD be that the Intel graphics are just not set up to support UXGA. I hate to tell you this after the fact, but perhaps the SXGA+ (1400x1050) 15" screen would have been a better option for you to look into since we already know that they have been paired with Intel integrated graphics in some R-series models. The pairing of a UXGA panel to Intel graphics is completely uncharted territory; Lenovo never did it in any model they sold. Even DB2DUDE made it pretty clear in his post (linked to earlier in this thread) that he installed his UXGA screen on an R-series with discrete ATI graphics since the "hack" he did to make it work properly relied on a feature in the ATI driver for X. Didn't sound to me like he had any experience with Intel graphics in his post.

However, all of that having been said, there MAY be a workaround to your problem that I think is worth having you try.

The fact that everything that is ever displayed, regardless of the resolution that it is being displayed in (for example, I guarantee you that neither the IBM boot logo nor the F12 boot menu are natively 1600x1200!), is being stretched off the screen probably means that the screen expansion setting is toggled on. In this mode, the graphics chip will try to take any image regardless of size and pixel-double the image until it fills what it thinks is the size of the panel. At least on ATI-based ThinkPads, this feature is able to be turned off; with this setting off, an image smaller than the native resolution of the panel will be reproduced faithfully without pixel doubling or stretching of the image by placing the image in the center of the screen and allowing for a black border of unused pixels to surround the image.

Given that, out of the 320 extra horizontal pixels that it thinks your panel has, all 320 of them that are lost are being taken exclusively from the right side of the image (instead of half of them (160) disappearing off of the left side of the screen and the other half off the right side), it makes me wonder if you could solve this problem by simply turning off screen expansion, if such a setting is able to be toggled on Intel graphics ThinkPads. On discrete-graphics ThinkPads, this can be done in the BIOS; look for the "H/V Expansion" setting under Display, set it to Disabled, and save the settings. With any luck, even though the Intel graphics system will still think that you have a WUXGA panel, it will (hopefully) not try to "center" a UXGA image on the "virtual" WUXGA canvas it thinks it has to work with, and just start painting the image at the very first column on your screen.

The other possibility is that turning off this option will make the proportions look correct, but it will still "shift" the image to the right by 160 pixels in an attempt to center the un-stretched image on the display that it THINKS you have, which will leave you with a black chunk of unlit pixels (160 in width) on the left and 160 pixels of the right side still "cut off." If this happens, at least this will confirm the theory of misread/misinterpreted aspect ratio and native screen size.

Let us all know how it goes!

Regards,

-- Nathan

P.S. -- It might also be interesting to have you re-wire up the XGA panel again and run PC Wizard on that panel, just to compare it to the results you got from PC Wizard on the UXGA panel.

Temetka
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Glendora, CA

#33 Post by Temetka » Sun Jul 22, 2007 4:38 am

That is a very interesting theory and not one that I had previously thought of. What makes me curios about it thought is that when the Thinkpad is booting and he is at the initial IBM logo screen, shouldn't it be running in a default mode and not at the standard panel resolution?

I ask because I am running at 1400x1050 and I am pretty sure tha tmy boot logo screen is not at that resolution but rather at some lower DOS type 80 column resolution.

The only other thing I can think of and it's probably going in the wrond direction is this. Change the video card setting to be VGA compatible (i.e. NOT using the driver) and set the monitor type to LCD Flat Panel.

This is certainly one of the weirdest LCD threads that I have come across lately and to be quite frank I would really like to know what is going on here just so we can some type of resolution for the collective knowledge base.
New:
Thinkpad T430s 8GB DDR3, 1600x900, 128GB + 250GB SSD's, etc.
Old:
E6520, Precision M4400, D630, Latitude E6520
ThinkPad Tablet 16GB 1838-22U
IBM Thinkpad X61T, T61, T43, X41T, T60, T41P, T42, T410, X301

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#34 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:07 am

NathanA wrote: The other possibility is that turning off this option will make the proportions look correct, but it will still "shift" the image to the right by 160 pixels in an attempt to center the un-stretched image on the display that it THINKS you have, which will leave you with a black chunk of unlit pixels (160 in width) on the left and 160 pixels of the right side still "cut off." If this happens, at least this will confirm the theory of misread/misinterpreted aspect ratio and native screen size.
Hi, I can indeed switch of H/V expansion.

Your second possibility came true, the display is now shifted to the right, and I have a big black border to the left. The border to the left is axactly the same width of pixels that the display part that is off-screen in expanded HV mode.

So, it is indeed thinking this is a WUXGA. At least this is some progress, and gives us something to work on.

Nicely spotted. Missed that completely

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#35 Post by NathanA » Sun Jul 22, 2007 5:48 am

Temetka wrote:That is a very interesting theory and not one that I had previously thought of. What makes me curios about it thought is that when the Thinkpad is booting and he is at the initial IBM logo screen, shouldn't it be running in a default mode and not at the standard panel resolution?
That's correct, the BIOS logo screen is not running at the native panel resolution. However, the BIOS logo screen always runs in HV Expansion mode, even if HV Expansion is turned off.

dedmeet, I'm glad to hear that my theory panned out, although I am also sorry to hear that turning off HV Expansion was not sufficient to make the display usable. :( Perhaps there is some way that the Intel graphics system can be "tricked" into thinking that it is a UXGA panel so that it operates properly. I am sorry to say that I don't know how much help I can be to finding the solution to the problem, however.

If you ever do find a solution, I will be most interested in knowing what the fix was, as I'm sure others here reading and contributing to this thread would be, too.

-- Nathan

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#36 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:05 am

NathanA wrote:
P.S. -- It might also be interesting to have you re-wire up the XGA panel again and run PC Wizard on that panel, just to compare it to the results you got from PC Wizard on the UXGA panel.
Hi, below pc wizard details if xga screen connected. 4th time i swapped screens, getting very good at it now :)

General Information :
Manufacturer : IBM
Product ID : IBM0A55
Manufacture : 2002
Video Input Type : Digital in 0.7/0.3v
Aspect Ratio : 16:10
Gamma Factor : 3.55
DPMS Active-Off : Yes
DPMS Suspend : Yes
DPMS Standby : Yes
EDID version : 1.3

Features :
Maximum Resolution : 1024 x 768 @ 60 Hz

Video Modes Supported :
Mode : 720 x 400 @ 70 Hz
Mode : 640 x 480 @ 75 Hz
Mode : 1024 x 768 @ 87 Hz interlaced


Seems to detect fine.

Is there a possibility that i have a faulty uxga panel ?

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#37 Post by NathanA » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:07 am

Oh, also, I still think it would be at least interesting (and has the potential to be useful) to get a PC Wizard read-out on your XGA screen attached to your laptop. I want to know, for example, if the make and model of the panel remains the same (MS_0003) after putting the original panel back in. It might give us some idea as to where the Intel graphics is getting its ideas about the panel properties.

-- Nathan

EDIT: Wow, you beat me to it. ;) I'll dwell on your results some and get back to y'all if I have any other ideas...I really doubt you have a faulty panel, frankly. I think it is some sort of weird interaction between the panel and Intel graphics; again, I'm not sure the GMA900-based stuff was ever meant to drive a UXGA panel. Whether it can be overcome remains to be seen.

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#38 Post by NathanA » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:12 am

Umm, okay, this is weird. You did not notice that pretty much everything on your PC Wizard panel readout for XGA matches the readout for the UXGA panel with the exception of make, model, and Maximum Resolution? (At least it READ the make and model correctly this time.) Even the gamma reading is the same (every UXGA IPS panel on a ThinkPad laptop that I've seen reports 2.2 as calibrated gamma value).

But most importantly, the Aspect Ratio value listed is still 16:10! How can this be? Neither panel is a 16:10 (widescreen) panel, so SOMETHING is very weird here, especially since the math on the Maximum Resolution doesn't add up (1024 / 768 == 4 / 3 == 1.333). Apparently the software isn't smart enough to realize there is a mismatch here.

-- Nathan

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#39 Post by NathanA » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:21 am

You know, I just had a thought. One thing that you might try is to see if the connector on the back of the XGA panel is the same as the connector on the back of the UXGA panel (this would require removing each panel from its plastic LCD cover housing). If they ARE the same, try swapping the cables and use the original cable that came with the XGA panel in combination with the UXGA panel.

It could be that even though the cables physically have the same connectors (and I don't know for a fact that they do...just thinking out loud here since I don't have them both in front of me), the pinouts are either not exactly the same or the cable that came with the UXGA screen sustained some damage and isn't passing along all of the information correctly. In the first case, it could be that the cable being used is actually more important/specific to the graphics chipset that the LCD is being paired with rather than it being specific to the LCD itself (maybe we have all been thinking about this backwards the entire time). In either case, replacing the cable with the original just might fix the problem and allow the graphics chipset to get an accurate read on the LCD's physical makeup.

Hey, it's worth a shot!

-- Nathan

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#40 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 6:39 am

NathanA wrote:You know, I just had a thought. One thing that you might try is to see if the connector on the back of the XGA panel is the same as the connector on the back of the UXGA panel (this would require removing each panel from its plastic LCD cover housing). If they ARE the same, try swapping the cables and use the original cable that came with the XGA panel in combination with the UXGA panel.

It could be that even though the cables physically have the same connectors (and I don't know for a fact that they do...just thinking out loud here since I don't have them both in front of me), the pinouts are either not exactly the same or the cable that came with the UXGA screen sustained some damage and isn't passing along all of the information correctly. In the first case, it could be that the cable being used is actually more important/specific to the graphics chipset that the LCD is being paired with rather than it being specific to the LCD itself (maybe we have all been thinking about this backwards the entire time). In either case, replacing the cable with the original just might fix the problem and allow the graphics chipset to get an accurate read on the LCD's physical makeup.

Hey, it's worth a shot!

-- Nathan
At this point, I am willing to try anything !

Now, any pointers on how to disassemble the panels ?

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#41 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 8:24 am

NathanA wrote:You know, I just had a thought. One thing that you might try is to see if the connector on the back of the XGA panel is the same as the connector on the back of the UXGA panel (this would require removing each panel from its plastic LCD cover housing). If they ARE the same, try swapping the cables and use the original cable that came with the XGA panel in combination with the UXGA panel.

It could be that even though the cables physically have the same connectors (and I don't know for a fact that they do...just thinking out loud here since I don't have them both in front of me), the pinouts are either not exactly the same or the cable that came with the UXGA screen sustained some damage and isn't passing along all of the information correctly. In the first case, it could be that the cable being used is actually more important/specific to the graphics chipset that the LCD is being paired with rather than it being specific to the LCD itself (maybe we have all been thinking about this backwards the entire time). In either case, replacing the cable with the original just might fix the problem and allow the graphics chipset to get an accurate read on the LCD's physical makeup.

Hey, it's worth a shot!

-- Nathan
Ok, just stripped both panels, swapped cables (they do look the same, with same sockets at both ends), but i get no video with the xga cable hooked to the uxga panel.

Must be wired differently.

Also tried to swap the inverters, no luck. (I can see the back light lit up)

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#42 Post by NathanA » Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:30 am

dedmeet wrote:Ok, just stripped both panels, swapped cables (they do look the same, with same sockets at both ends), but i get no video with the xga cable hooked to the uxga panel. Must be wired differently.
Darn. :( Sorry, out of ideas for now...hmm.

Yeah, and I would guess that swapping inverters would probably not have done any good. The inverter is strictly used to power the display.

Think, think, think...

-- Nathan

Troels
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

#43 Post by Troels » Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:56 am

I have a feeling that this is limited on purpose, to prevent people buying entry level systems, and max it out that way.
It most likely is a firmware decision.

When i swapped my T42 SXGA+ to UXGA the screen is now detected as MS_0006, screen size of approx 20 inches. Apart from that, it works perfectly fine.
I haven't given that much thought until now though...

I'd really try calling IBM, don't tell them too much about your warranty - just ask them how the GMA900 15" systems were limited not to take a UXGA display from a T42p or T43p.

Ok, read this link, from "Simulating DDC Detection of the LCD Display Panel, Monitor, and TV".
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/di ... splay.mspx

:(

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#44 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 7:37 pm

Hi,

Well just finished install of gentoo linux on second partition, so now I can try stuff using either OS.

Just in windows now, and loaded pc wizard again. Something I had missed.

Pc Wizard says the display is a TV

Number of monitor : 1
Monitor Type : Generic Television
Video Card : Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
Current Display : 1600x1200 pixels at 60 Hz in True Colors (32-bit)
OpenGL : Yes
GDI Plus : Yes


Is this normal, or part of my oddity ?

Temetka
Senior ThinkPadder
Senior ThinkPadder
Posts: 2790
Joined: Fri Sep 30, 2005 3:27 am
Location: Glendora, CA

#45 Post by Temetka » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:07 pm

This is an oddity. Try changing the monitor type to an LCD with your resolution or failing that how about the generic plug and play monitor.
New:
Thinkpad T430s 8GB DDR3, 1600x900, 128GB + 250GB SSD's, etc.
Old:
E6520, Precision M4400, D630, Latitude E6520
ThinkPad Tablet 16GB 1838-22U
IBM Thinkpad X61T, T61, T43, X41T, T60, T41P, T42, T410, X301

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#46 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 9:49 pm

Temetka wrote:This is an oddity. Try changing the monitor type to an LCD with your resolution or failing that how about the generic plug and play monitor.
I figured you meant in the control panel. I did so, and that seemed to fix that, but still not fixed the actual display issue.

Number of monitor : 1
Monitor Type : PNP09FE
Video Card : Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
Current Display : 1600x1200 pixels at 60 Hz in True Colors (32-bit)
OpenGL : Yes
GDI Plus : Yes


Btw, if I click on the 'Number of monitors' section, I get this :

Monitor Information #1 :
Monitor : Default Monitor
Linked on : Mobile Intel(R) 915GM/GMS,910GML Express Chipset Family
Resolution : 1600x1200
Working desktop : 1600x1170
Main monitor : Yes


Note the Working desktop.....I think that is the part of my desktop that actually fits to the physical display and is visible to me.

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#47 Post by dedmeet » Sun Jul 22, 2007 10:35 pm

Well, I am about to give up.

I have contacted the guy I had bought the UXGA from, to find if he has any SXGA panels available, and to see if we can do a swap.

Hopefully the SXGA would not have the same issue.

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

UXGA going back for SXGA

#48 Post by dedmeet » Mon Jul 23, 2007 1:37 am

Hi,

MAde an arrangement with the guy I bought the UXGA from.
He has a SXGA panel from a T43.
He has aggreed to do a swap.

I pointed him to this thread, and he is very understanding about the issue.

Many thanks to everyones suggestions and help.

I think the two parts just aint compatible.

Hope this thread would help someone who plans to do a simmialr upgrade. Basically lesson learnt : UXGA and Intel gfx don't work together.

Will post back once I get the SXGA. Hopefully the nesw will be good.

Edit: Boxed up and ready to go. Courier will be picking it up today.
Last edited by dedmeet on Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:58 am, edited 2 times in total.

Troels
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1028
Joined: Wed Oct 12, 2005 2:55 pm
Location: Aalborg, Denmark

#49 Post by Troels » Mon Jul 23, 2007 7:29 pm

That is a very honorable and understanding seller you have got. Sorry to see that you had to be the "guinea pig" in this large and expensive project which it has turned out to be.

I still have my fears that Lenovo and IBM are total pedantic about keeping everything stock, so that one could not buy one of the cheaper T43s and basically turn it into a T43p (w/o the GPU performance).
That might also partly explain why there is an XGA and a SXGA+/UXGA LCD cable available, and two different BIOS firmware downloads available.
They have all the power to code it in firmware that display resolutions of the LCD is 1024x768.

I still have hope that the SXGA+ screen from the T43 works as it should, since it came from a T43 (and not T42) 8)

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

#50 Post by NathanA » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:27 am

Troels wrote:That is a very honorable and understanding seller you have got.
Boy, I'll say! Let us all know who the seller is so that those of us here who might need some ThinkPad parts can reward him with some extra business. :)

For what it's worth, I also hope the SXGA+ panel works out for you, and I think there is some reason to hope that it will, given that there are, as others have pointed out, R-series models with the SXGA+ panel paired with Intel graphics. But that doesn't mean anything, really. :?

Keep us posted.

-- Nathan

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#51 Post by dedmeet » Wed Jul 25, 2007 3:50 am

NathanA wrote:
Troels wrote:That is a very honorable and understanding seller you have got.
Boy, I'll say! Let us all know who the seller is so that those of us here who might need some ThinkPad parts can reward him with some extra business. :)

For what it's worth, I also hope the SXGA+ panel works out for you, and I think there is some reason to hope that it will, given that there are, as others have pointed out, R-series models with the SXGA+ panel paired with Intel graphics. But that doesn't mean anything, really. :?

Keep us posted.

-- Nathan
Hi,

His name is Dimitri, he has a shop on ebay.

http://stores.ebay.co.uk/Dimitris-Stuff

Lots of thinkpad stuff.

crashnburn
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: TX, USA & Bombay, India

#52 Post by crashnburn » Wed Aug 01, 2007 3:31 pm

Updates on your upgrade?
T61 8892-02U: 14.1"SXGA+/2.2C2D/4G/XP|Adv Mini Dock|30" Gateway XHD3000 WQXGA via Dual-link DVI
X61T 7767-96U: 12.1"SXGA+/1.6C2D/3G/Vista|Ultrabase
W510 4319-2PU: 15.6"FHD/i7-720QM/4G/Win7Pro64 (for dad)
T43 1875-DLU: 14.1"XGA/1.7PM-740/1G/XP (Old)

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

#53 Post by dedmeet » Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:34 am

crashnburn wrote:Updates on your upgrade?
Waiting for the SXGA+ to be delivered, should be here in a few days.

Update: The screen cleared customs on the 3rd, will have possession of it soon.
Update: Screen was delivered today. Will connect tonight, and post my result.

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

upgrade done

#54 Post by dedmeet » Mon Aug 06, 2007 2:29 pm

Hi

Well, new screen (SXGA+) connected, and practically worked out the box.

I had to patch the video bios to allow the 1400x1050 resolution in xorg, done with 915resolution program.


There is a new xorg driver (called the modesetting intel driver) that allows xorg modes to be specified, with out having to use 915resoluton, but I could not get my external screen working in dual head using it.

915resolution works 100%.

Many thanks to all who had tried to help with this upgrade.

crashnburn
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: TX, USA & Bombay, India

Re: upgrade done

#55 Post by crashnburn » Mon Aug 06, 2007 6:59 pm

dedmeet wrote:Hi

Well, new screen (SXGA+) connected, and practically worked out the box.

I had to patch the video bios to allow the 1400x1050 resolution in xorg, done with 915resolution program.


There is a new xorg driver (called the modesetting intel driver) that allows xorg modes to be specified, with out having to use 915resoluton, but I could not get my external screen working in dual head using it.

915resolution works 100%.

Many thanks to all who had tried to help with this upgrade.
I guess the link for the LCD you had posted is not the right one.

Can you link to the right LCD that you ended up getting and installing successfully?
T61 8892-02U: 14.1"SXGA+/2.2C2D/4G/XP|Adv Mini Dock|30" Gateway XHD3000 WQXGA via Dual-link DVI
X61T 7767-96U: 12.1"SXGA+/1.6C2D/3G/Vista|Ultrabase
W510 4319-2PU: 15.6"FHD/i7-720QM/4G/Win7Pro64 (for dad)
T43 1875-DLU: 14.1"XGA/1.7PM-740/1G/XP (Old)

NathanA
Junior Member
Junior Member
Posts: 335
Joined: Fri May 07, 2004 2:10 am
Location: Moscow, ID, USA

Re: upgrade done

#56 Post by NathanA » Mon Aug 06, 2007 9:26 pm

dedmeet wrote:Well, new screen (SXGA+) connected, and practically worked out the box.
That's awesome news! Thanks for updating us all here on the forums after you got the new display installed. Enjoy your higher resolution and newfound FlexView-ness!

Out of curiosity, had you tried to use 915resolution with the UXGA screen when you had it? (My guess is "yes" and that it didn't fix the problem, as evidenced by the fact that the BIOS boot screen didn't even work correctly. Did the BIOS screen look fine with the new SXGA+ screen out-of-the-box, so to speak?)

-- Nathan

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

Re: upgrade done

#57 Post by dedmeet » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:45 am

crashnburn wrote:
dedmeet wrote:Hi

Well, new screen (SXGA+) connected, and practically worked out the box.

I had to patch the video bios to allow the 1400x1050 resolution in xorg, done with 915resolution program.


There is a new xorg driver (called the modesetting intel driver) that allows xorg modes to be specified, with out having to use 915resoluton, but I could not get my external screen working in dual head using it.

915resolution works 100%.

Many thanks to all who had tried to help with this upgrade.
I guess the link for the LCD you had posted is not the right one.

Can you link to the right LCD that you ended up getting and installing successfully?
Hi, I have no link to the SXGA+ screen, it was never listed on ebay as for-sale.

Dimitri, who I had bought the UXGA screen from had just done a straight swap for me UXGA->SXGA+

All I can say it is a SXGA+, from a t43 thinkpad (not from a t43/p)

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

Re: upgrade done

#58 Post by dedmeet » Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:51 am

NathanA wrote:
Out of curiosity, had you tried to use 915resolution with the UXGA screen when you had it? (My guess is "yes" and that it didn't fix the problem, as evidenced by the fact that the BIOS boot screen didn't even work correctly. Did the BIOS screen look fine with the new SXGA+ screen out-of-the-box, so to speak?)

-- Nathan
Yes I did, but it had no effect :( The bios actually had the UXGA resolution listed, so there would have been no need to do the patch, if the screen had displayed correctly.

I even tried replacing every bios mode with the 1600x1200, did not work. Using the modesetting xorg drivers I did mamage to get 1600x1200, but it was still off-center, to the right.

Figure the eventual assesment made was correct, UXGA with the intel chipset just was not possible, possibly due to a firmware bug, or intentionally done by IBM

The bios screen etc all look fine, perfectly centered on the SXGA+

I am very very happy now :)

At least my 'experiment' had help add to the collective knowledge base, and hopefully someone who was thinking about the same upgrade will be spared the hassle, and cost involved. I was lucky in the fact that the money involved was not my own, but from my company.

crashnburn
ThinkPadder
ThinkPadder
Posts: 1643
Joined: Sat Apr 22, 2006 4:26 pm
Location: TX, USA & Bombay, India

Re: upgrade done

#59 Post by crashnburn » Thu Oct 18, 2007 7:47 pm

dedmeet wrote:
NathanA wrote:
Out of curiosity, had you tried to use 915resolution with the UXGA screen when you had it? (My guess is "yes" and that it didn't fix the problem, as evidenced by the fact that the BIOS boot screen didn't even work correctly. Did the BIOS screen look fine with the new SXGA+ screen out-of-the-box, so to speak?)

-- Nathan
Yes I did, but it had no effect :( The bios actually had the UXGA resolution listed, so there would have been no need to do the patch, if the screen had displayed correctly.

I even tried replacing every bios mode with the 1600x1200, did not work. Using the modesetting xorg drivers I did mamage to get 1600x1200, but it was still off-center, to the right.

Figure the eventual assesment made was correct, UXGA with the intel chipset just was not possible, possibly due to a firmware bug, or intentionally done by IBM

The bios screen etc all look fine, perfectly centered on the SXGA+

I am very very happy now :)

At least my 'experiment' had help add to the collective knowledge base, and hopefully someone who was thinking about the same upgrade will be spared the hassle, and cost involved. I was lucky in the fact that the money involved was not my own, but from my company.
Okay.. This project is not gonna be as much fun as I thought.
T61 8892-02U: 14.1"SXGA+/2.2C2D/4G/XP|Adv Mini Dock|30" Gateway XHD3000 WQXGA via Dual-link DVI
X61T 7767-96U: 12.1"SXGA+/1.6C2D/3G/Vista|Ultrabase
W510 4319-2PU: 15.6"FHD/i7-720QM/4G/Win7Pro64 (for dad)
T43 1875-DLU: 14.1"XGA/1.7PM-740/1G/XP (Old)

dedmeet
Posts: 44
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:05 pm
Location: Ryde, United Kingdom

Re: upgrade done

#60 Post by dedmeet » Fri Oct 19, 2007 1:10 am

crashnburn wrote:
Okay.. This project is not gonna be as much fun as I thought.
Hi,

What do you mean ?

It really is an easy mod to upgrade the screen, just don't go try and pair up the intel chipset based thinkpad with a UXGA screen.

The SXGA+ works perfectly. I am still very happy with my upgrade, the extra screen space is nice.

Lucas

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “ThinkPad T4x Series”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest