I noticed that since I upgraded from my Radeon 9800 XT to my Radeon X850 XT with the latest 5.4 drivers, mIRC scrolls in a very choppy motion. It's no longer as smooth as it used to be when scroll up.

The problem can be easily explained like this:

When I'm in a channel or query and I click the "Status" tab very rapidly, it cannot keep up with me. After I stop clicking, the windows are still changing. It feels like it's not using hardware.

All other programs works fine with loads of text in the windows: Firefox, Newsleecher..

I'm using 1280x960 32bbp, 100hz Refresh rate. Tried changing it all but no difference. Any ideas?

1280x960 ? thats an odd res normally its 1280x1024, try changing to a 24 or 16bit color mode, your not gonna notice gthe difference, (i wouldnt have thought it would effect mirc either way, but i have seen this mode change down increase multimedia play back greatly)

I don't know why people online have been brainwashed to think 1280x1024 is the resolution to use, because it is not. If you divide the following, you will get the exact same answer for all of them:

640x480 = 1.3
800x600 = 1.3
1024x768 = 1.3
1152x864 = 1.3
1280x960 = 1.3
1600x1200 = 1.3

and then...

1280x1024 = 1.25

Conclusion: 1280x1024 is NOT a valid 4:3 aspect ratio and should NOT be used by anyone unless their monitor's aspect ratio is meant for it. But thanks for playing, there's a consolation prize behind door labelled "Brainwashed".

My monitor doesn't even have a 1280x960 setting, though it does offer 1280x1024. Does this mean that this setting should not be used? No, in fact it doesn't. I use, and like, this setting, regardless of your opinion.

Conclusion: Lose the attitude. If you have good information to share, please do so without the unwarranted prejudice. Your arguments for or against something have a much better chance to convince others to change their minds about whatever it is if you omit the holier-than-thou flavored comments. For example:

Personally, I can't imagine why someone with normal vision would still use 640x480 or even 800x600 on modern monitors since I think they both give up far too much screen real estate for limited gain in readability of what is displayed, but many more people still use those resolutions than use what I choose to use. On my 19" Philips 109B monitor, I believe 1280x1024 (you can substitute your own resolution choice here) to be very legible for all applications unless you still have a 15" monitor and/or poor eyesight. My best guess as to why more people use those two huge resolutions is that they are, or were, defaults.

The preceeding states why I believe my resolution to be the best for the monitor I'm using, without pre-judging anyone else's choice of monitor/video card/screen resolution. My comments balance the gains and losses and state why I think my choice is better, at least for me, without a single derogatory statement.

Right. There are many resolutions for monitors and cards which are not the same ratio. Why that is, I don't know, but it is true and works fine for those monitors.

The computer I'm on now as two settings for 1280x****. They are 1280x768 and 1280x1024... neither of which are the normal aspect ratio.

As far as the smaller resolutions, I'd have to agree that I can't deal with those. I personally use 1024x768, but that's just because I'm used to it and my monitor is old and doesn't particularly like the higher resolutions. For that matter, it doesn't like 75Hz refresh rate anymore either.

You sad sad sad little man, Ill tell ya something, my viewsonic monitor is kick ass, but you should already know that being the all mightly knowing one as you think you are,and as for it not holding to 4:3, well guess what it can hold 4:3 in 1280x1024, becuase (as you would already know, since you know all) the screen vertically spreads a little more in this mode, to hold the 4:3 ratio, as to WHY im brainwashed to use this res, well I dont much im normally in 1600, but if i couldnt reach that, i would use 1280x1024 becuase i get more lines on the screen that way. And honestly ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 being less than 7% change would mean jack all to me in what i do.

Now Ill ask you, Why buy why do you feel it was so important to be in 32bit mode? What you think you can see that fine a color spectrum?, Oh but why ask you would already know why, knowing all, .....hmmm wait a sec didnt you not know something to begin with? werent you asking a question?


oh PS, if i wanted to be as close minded as you I could have just cut your example to peaces
lets sart with 1.3 whcih was actually 1.33r but rounded so to be fair ill apply the rounding to all answers, now 1.25 should be rounded resulting in 1.3 which , well wow is the identical value so there all the same, so you dont get no prize today!