Cant install the proper display driver for my CRT because of windows 7's generic driver

[afex54]

Windows was capping my refresh rate to 85Hz when my display is capable of 160Hz and causing other annoying issues with frame rate/resolution but luckily I managed to find the official display driver for my old monitor.
the trouble is when I use 'Update driver' and select the .INF file it says 'The best driver software for your device is already installed'.
I thought I might uninstall the generic driver but im worried that'll just blackout my display and leave me in an even worse state.
any ideas what i should do?

EDIT: I just tried this procedure but I get error 'the folder you selected does not contain a compatiable software driver for your device'... I think the driver might be 32-bit.

heres the page for my monitor:
http://www.mitsubishielectric.com.au/2345.htm

 

[qwertyK]

Seriously, why are you still using a CRT? Its 2015 for God's sake! You can't find a driver because they didn't make one for Windows 7. Latest you could get would probably be ME, if you're lucky XP.

Get a 21.5" 1080p monitor, you'll be better off in the long run. If you can't afford it, you can find some cheap 19" 4:3 monitor on sites like eBay that will still be miles better than that display.

 

[spagalicious]

Throw your CRT in the trash?

No, I kid. I kid.

Do you see a list of available modes in Windows Display Adapter Settings?

Have you tried using CRU (Custom Resolution Utility) to set your desired resolution and refresh rate?
http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU

 

[qwertyK]

I never said throw it in the trash. He could use it for some old machine or sell it for good money as an antique collectible.

 

[spagalicious]

I never said throw it in the trash. He could use it for some old machine or sell it for good money as an antique collectible.

Neither did I?

 

[qwertyK]

Sorry, just sounded like you were suggesting that I was just telling him to throw it away when CRTs are worth keeping.

 

[qwertyK]

Seriously, why are you still using a CRT?

cos they're better

Not for general use their not.

 

[afex54]

Seriously, why are you still using a CRT? Its 2015 for God's sake! You can't find a driver because they didn't make one for Windows 7. Latest you could get would probably be ME, if you're lucky XP.

Get a 21.5" 1080p monitor, you'll be better off in the long run. If you can't afford it, you can find some cheap 19" 4:3 monitor on sites like eBay that will still be miles better than that display.

CRTs are worthless in my country (some of their value still persists in the US) thanks to the over-saturation of cheap, lousy, slim and light LCDs.
I picked up a monitor for $20 that, while weighing a lot, has <1ms latency, 120hz at pseudo-2K res(basically 2k with pillarbox), low persistance (aka 'Light Boost') and superior colour reproduction with a 20'' screen
how much would you pay for that in the form of an LCD?.

 

[afex54]

Not for general use their not.

yeah explain that please

 

[qwertyK]

Well, you can't play 1080p video or games in 1080p or even 720p...so you're already behind. 4:3 Aspect ratio is rubbish for games.....

 

[afex54]

Throw your CRT in the trash?

No, I kid. I kid.

Do you see a list of available modes in Windows Display Adapter Settings?

Have you tried using CRU (Custom Resolution Utility) to set your desired resolution and refresh rate?
http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU[/quote]

yeah, 'list all modes' is restricted too.
I will try CRU now but so far if I disable EDID and pick the max resolutions it has no effect on the refresh rate, still capped at 85, and actually deteriorates the image unless I set the max to whatever res windows is set to.

 

[junkeymonkey]

funny my old crt monitors work just a fine as any of my new flat screens do ?? also crt has less or I should say no lag that all lcd type monitors do ??

far better for fast fps games by far [dead nutts on]


Response Time

CRTs already have a very fast response time hence this attribute does not apply to it.

This is one of the major reasons for CRTs being in use by gamers as the high native resolution that LCD demands may not deliver smooth frame rates.

http://bootstrike.com/Articles/LCDvsCRT/

just to add I don't think crt can do over [rounded ]85hz max anyway so you should not have issue with that or your display info is reporting incorrectly

https://www.pctechguide.com/crt-monitors/crt-monitor-resolution-and-refresh-rates-vsf

then I don't ever recall needing a driver for a monitor outside of the generic windows one ?? [maybe a crazy dell monitor ] then who wants that ??

don't know all my crt's is 85hz ???

from your monitor manufactures link you gave above

Maximum Resolution 2048 x 1536 pixels @ 86 Hz refresh rate
Recommended Resolution 1600 x 1200 pixels @ 85 Hz

so ???

 

[afex54]

Throw your CRT in the trash?

No, I kid. I kid.

Do you see a list of available modes in Windows Display Adapter Settings?

Have you tried using CRU (Custom Resolution Utility) to set your desired resolution and refresh rate?
http://www.monitortests.com/forum/Thread-Custom-Resolution-Utility-CRU

yeah, 'list all modes' is restricted too.
I will try CRU now but so far if I disable EDID and pick the max resolutions it has no effect on the refresh rate, still capped at 85, and actually deteriorates the image unless I set the max to whatever res windows is set to.

 

[afex54]

Well, you can't play 1080p video or games in 1080p or even 720p...so you're already behind. 4:3 Aspect ratio is rubbish for games.....

4:3 is fine.
CRTs arent burdened by native resolutions so you can play in a true 1080p letterbox.
bottomline: they cost barely anything to free vs 300+ for LCD... they are better full stop

 

[junkeymonkey]

from your monitor manufactures link you gave above

Maximum Resolution 2048 x 1536 pixels @ 86 Hz refresh rate
Recommended Resolution 1600 x 1200 pixels @ 85 Hz

 

[spagalicious]

Well, you can't play 1080p video or games in 1080p or even 720p...so you're already behind. 4:3 Aspect ratio is rubbish for games.....

4:3 is fine.
CRTs arent burdened by native resolutions so you can play in a true 1080p letterbox.
bottomline: they cost barely anything to free vs 300+ for LCD... they are better full stop

Well that is a bit subjective. 4:3 is an advantage to some, but to many it is not.

CRT's also lack sharpness in comparison to LCD displays, use about 2x as much power, weigh 2 or 3 times more, generate more heat, require at least 75Hz to be flicker-free, and lack brightness. In turn, this lowers the contrast ratio capability of a CRT considerably.

Of course, no input lag/response delay is one area where CRTs blow away the competition. However, on modern LCDs this is a non-issue as most displays are measured below 20ms of latency (signal processing+response times). High end panels measuring close to 3-5ms of combined latency/lag.

Not to mention, CRTs screen sizes are much smaller than LCDs. While I and others understand that for the most hardcore of specifications, the CRT beats an LCD any day of the week. But for all else, it makes little sense not to save up for a new panel at this point in time. Staring at 15"-20" for extending periods can cause tremendous eye strain. Surely, investing in a high end LCD will be worth it in the long run, no?

Of course, no one is saying you can't use an CRT. But for the masses, both general and power users alike, consider the CRT out of date. I don't think there is an argument there.

 

[junkeymonkey]

some folk can only do the best they can with what they got to work with -- like around here in a poor rural area folks aint ''rich'' and a old crt from good will maybe all they can afford ?? or just don't throw good working things away so easy??

anyway that monitor should not need any driver outside of what windows provides - so it must be the vid card mis recognizing the display

just set it all to 1024x 768 @ 85/60hz and it should do all you want ?? that's where I keep all mine ?? [opinion]

 

[spagalicious]

some folk can only do the best they can with what they got to work with -- like around here in a poor rural area folks aint ''rich'' and a old crt from good will maybe all they can afford ?? or just don't throw good working things away so easy??

anyway that monitor should not need any driver outside of what windows provides - so it must be the vid card mis recognizing the display

just set it all to 1024x 768 @ 85/60hz and it should do all you want ?? that's where I keep all mine ?? [opinion]

Which I why I said "No one said you can't use a CRT". Not saying he has to upgrade. Besides this subsection is not the place to argue the merits of CRT vs LCD. Merely adding to the conversation.

OP, did CRU work?

 

[afex54]

Well, you can't play 1080p video or games in 1080p or even 720p...so you're already behind. 4:3 Aspect ratio is rubbish for games.....

4:3 is fine.
CRTs arent burdened by native resolutions so you can play in a true 1080p letterbox.
bottomline: they cost barely anything to free vs 300+ for LCD... they are better full stop

Well that is a bit subjective. 4:3 is an advantage to some, but to many it is not.

CRT's also lack sharpness in comparison to LCD displays, use about 2x as much power, weigh 2 or 3 times more, generate more heat, require at least 75Hz to be flicker-free, and lack brightness. In turn, this lowers the contrast ratio capability of a CRT considerably.

Of course, no input lag/response delay is one area where CRTs blow away the competition. However, on modern LCDs this is a non-issue as most displays are measured below 20ms of latency (signal processing+response times). High end panels measuring close to 3-5ms of combined latency/lag.

Not to mention, CRTs screen sizes are much smaller than LCDs. While I and others understand that for the most hardcore of specifications, the CRT beats an LCD any day of the week. But for all else, it makes little sense not to save up for a new panel at this point in time. Staring at 15"-20" for extending periods can cause tremendous eye strain. Surely, investing in a high end LCD will be worth it in the long run, no?

Of course, no one is saying you can't use an CRT. But for the masses, both general and power users alike, consider the CRT out of date. I don't think there is an argument there.

I was probably a bit strong in my defense of CRTs but for me personally it is still considerably better, the sole reason being the ultra high performance/price ratio!
they are definitely outdated. small size, low weight and low power consumption are a cornerstone of modern electronics.
anyway, I tried CRU and intially I wasnt sure what It had actually done but after I disabled EDID 'List all modes' now had options for maximum refresh rates up to 160Hz... so thanks!!

PS when I say 'CRT' im talking specifically about the high-end ones from the last years of production, they have brilliant image quality rivaling the best of LCDs.