Re: duplicate entries in device manager

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by chuckcar, Jan 19, 2010.

  1. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "Me" <> wrote in
    news::

    > I have a Dell Dimension 3100 wit integrated Intel graphics (intel
    > 82915g/gv/910gl).
    > For some reason under device manager the monitors section has 2
    > entries (both with my monitor).
    > If I delete one/both they reappear if I do a scan for new devices or
    > reboot.
    >
    > Is this normal? why would it be listed 2x
    >

    Try removing both monitors and all the display adapters in device
    manager and reboot. Or you could look on the back of the computer as see
    if you have a standard VGA connector and a DVI one or two of either.


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VGA_connector

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface


    If you only have one monitor connected to the video plugs, then there's
    your answer. I have a video card that has two outputs and it does the
    exact same thing. It's correct behavior.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 19, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "Me" <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D058A4DADADAchuck@127.0.0.1...
    >> "Me" <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> I have a Dell Dimension 3100 wit integrated Intel graphics (intel
    >>> 82915g/gv/910gl).
    >>> For some reason under device manager the monitors section has 2
    >>> entries (both with my monitor).
    >>> If I delete one/both they reappear if I do a scan for new devices or
    >>> reboot.
    >>>
    >>> Is this normal? why would it be listed 2x
    >>>

    >> Try removing both monitors and all the display adapters in device
    >> manager and reboot. Or you could look on the back of the computer as
    >> see if you have a standard VGA connector and a DVI one or two of
    >> either.
    >>
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VGA_connector
    >>
    >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
    >>
    >>
    >> If you only have one monitor connected to the video plugs, then
    >> there's your answer. I have a video card that has two outputs and it
    >> does the exact same thing. It's correct behavior.


    > Only ONE VGA output (no DVI)
    >

    Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have corrupted
    drivers.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 20, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "Me" <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D05C11F22797chuck@127.0.0.1...
    >> "Me" <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> Only ONE VGA output (no DVI)
    >>>

    >> Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have
    >> corrupted drivers.

    >
    > Nope, still comes back
    >

    You remove *every* one of both and let it reboot?


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 20, 2010
    #3
  4. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    Evan Platt <> wrote in
    news::

    > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:01:38 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have
    >>corrupted drivers.

    >
    > *sigh* Try to keep up, ok chucktard?
    >
    > From: Mike Easter <>
    > Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    > Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager
    > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 10:31:23 -0800
    > Message-ID: <>
    >
    > I see an article that says that obsolete or duplicate items should be
    > removed in safe mode.
    >
    > <SNIP>
    >
    > From: "Me" <>
    > Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    > Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager
    > Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010 13:51:08 -0500
    > Message-ID: <>
    >
    > sorry.
    > XP SP3.
    > Just tried it in safe mode, same issue.


    Hasn't mattered since windows Millenium. You *really* don't know jack shit do
    you?

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 20, 2010
    #4
  5. chuckcar

    freemont Guest

    On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:03:50 +0000, chuckcar writ:

    > Evan Platt <> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:01:38 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have
    >>>corrupted drivers.

    >>
    >> *sigh* Try to keep up, ok chucktard?
    >>
    >> From: Mike Easter <> Newsgroups:
    >> 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    >> Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010
    >> 10:31:23 -0800 Message-ID: <>
    >>
    >> I see an article that says that obsolete or duplicate items should be
    >> removed in safe mode.
    >>
    >> <SNIP>
    >>
    >> From: "Me" <>
    >> Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    >> Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2010
    >> 13:51:08 -0500 Message-ID:
    >> <>
    >>
    >> sorry.
    >> XP SP3.
    >> Just tried it in safe mode, same issue.

    >
    > Hasn't mattered since windows Millenium. You *really* don't know jack
    > shit do you?


    There you go blabbering about WinME again. Why don't you give us a link
    to that WinME calendar?

    OP: It's normal behavior for that adapter. You'll see it again and again
    with Intel chipsets. They have the capability to work with two monitors
    (whether or not there are two adapters) and this capability shows in
    Device Manager as two identical adapters. Ignore it.

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, Jan 20, 2010
    #5
  6. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    freemont <> wrote in
    news:0005c1dd$0$2184$:

    > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:03:50 +0000, chuckcar writ:
    >
    >> Evan Platt <> wrote in
    >> news::
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 00:01:38 +0000 (UTC), chuckcar <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>Then do part 1. *both* monitors and display adapters. You have
    >>>>corrupted drivers.
    >>>
    >>> *sigh* Try to keep up, ok chucktard?
    >>>
    >>> From: Mike Easter <> Newsgroups:
    >>> 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    >>> Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager Date: Tue, 19 Jan
    >>> 2010 10:31:23 -0800 Message-ID: <>
    >>>
    >>> I see an article that says that obsolete or duplicate items should
    >>> be removed in safe mode.
    >>>
    >>> <SNIP>
    >>>
    >>> From: "Me" <>
    >>> Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk
    >>> Subject: Re: duplicate entries in device manager Date: Tue, 19 Jan
    >>> 2010 13:51:08 -0500 Message-ID:
    >>> <>
    >>>
    >>> sorry.
    >>> XP SP3.
    >>> Just tried it in safe mode, same issue.

    >>
    >> Hasn't mattered since windows Millenium. You *really* don't know jack
    >> shit do you?

    >
    > There you go blabbering about WinME again. Why don't you give us a
    > link to that WinME calendar?
    >

    When was the last time you actually knew enough to fix a problem here?

    That's right - *never*.


    > OP: It's normal behavior for that adapter.


    And why exactly would that be with only *one* monitor or connector hmm?
    Do enlighten us,

    > You'll see it again and again
    > with Intel chipsets.


    You mean like the 810?

    > They have the capability to work with two monitors
    > (whether or not there are two adapters) and this capability shows in
    > Device Manager as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
    >

    ROFL. And exactly why would that be?


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 20, 2010
    #6
  7. chuckcar

    freemont Guest

    On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:

    > freemont <> wrote in
    > news:0005c1dd$0$2184$:
    >
    >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 03:03:50 +0000, chuckcar writ:


    >>>
    >>> Hasn't mattered since windows Millenium. You *really* don't know jack
    >>> shit do you?

    >>
    >> There you go blabbering about WinME again. Why don't you give us a link
    >> to that WinME calendar?
    >>

    > When was the last time you actually knew enough to fix a problem here?
    >
    > That's right - *never*.


    LOL! Nice dodge, dumbass.

    >> OP: It's normal behavior for that adapter.

    >
    > And why exactly would that be with only *one* monitor or connector hmm?
    > Do enlighten us,


    It's a by-product of the driver, dumbass. Oh, never mind. You can't
    understand.

    >> You'll see it again and again
    >> with Intel chipsets.

    >
    > You mean like the 810?


    No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.

    >> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
    >> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device Manager as
    >> two identical adapters. Ignore it.
    >>

    > ROFL. And exactly why would that be?


    A quick search turns up:

    <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>

    So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of USENET
    is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.

    Oh, this is where you disappear. Later, dumbass.
    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, Jan 20, 2010
    #7
  8. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    freemont <> wrote in
    news:00c8d74b$0$8186$:

    > On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:
    >


    >>> You'll see it again and again
    >>> with Intel chipsets.

    >>
    >> You mean like the 810?

    >
    > No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
    >

    You *said* "Intel Chipsets" The 810 *was* and is an Intel chipset. The
    manufacturer of the chips has absolutely no co-relation to whether or not
    a card will take more than one monitor. However if one *does*, there will
    be two similiar entries (not necessarily identical as my Radeon will attest)
    in display adapters and *always* two in monitors. One *will* be either the currently
    used monitor or Plug and Play monitor and if the second is unconnected *then*
    you will have "unknown monitor". However a video card that only takes one monitor
    will have two (or more) monitors listed in Dev Man if the drivers are corrupted.

    >>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
    >>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device Manager
    >>> as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
    >>>

    >> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?

    >
    > A quick search turns up:
    >
    > <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
    >
    > So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of
    > USENET is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
    >

    What does HP have to do with a Dell Computer? Besides, it doesn't match
    what the OP is getting - One entry in display adapters and two
    *different* entries in monitors. This is proprietary hardware. *Every*
    computer manufacturer will do it differently and their drivers won't be
    compatible, of that you can be sure.


    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 21, 2010
    #8
  9. chuckcar

    freemont Guest

    On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:45:56 +0000, chuckcar writ:

    > freemont <> wrote in
    > news:00c8d74b$0$8186$:
    >
    >> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> You'll see it again and again
    >>>> with Intel chipsets.
    >>>
    >>> You mean like the 810?

    >>
    >> No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
    >>

    > You *said* "Intel Chipsets" The 810 *was* and is an Intel chipset. The
    > manufacturer of the chips has absolutely no co-relation to whether or
    > not a card will take more than one monitor. However if one *does*, there
    > will be two similiar entries (not necessarily identical as my Radeon
    > will attest) in display adapters and *always* two in monitors. One
    > *will* be either the currently used monitor or Plug and Play monitor and
    > if the second is unconnected *then* you will have "unknown monitor".
    > However a video card that only takes one monitor will have two (or more)
    > monitors listed in Dev Man if the drivers are corrupted.


    The *OP* said that he saw two *monitors* listed in Device *Manager* and
    this *confused* *him* because he *has* only one *monitor*. *He* also
    *said* that *he* *has* the *Intel* 915 *graphics* chip. *He* should *not*
    *let* the Device *Manager* report bother *him* because, *as* the *site* I
    linked *to* points *out*, this *is* expected *behavior* from that
    *chipset*. Are *you* really this *thick*?

    >
    >>>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
    >>>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device Manager
    >>>> as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
    >>>>
    >>> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?

    >>
    >> A quick search turns up:
    >>
    >> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
    >>
    >> So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of
    >> USENET is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
    >>

    > What does HP have to do with a Dell Computer? Besides, it doesn't match
    > what the OP is getting - One entry in display adapters and two
    > *different* entries in monitors. This is proprietary hardware. *Every*
    > computer manufacturer will do it differently and their drivers won't be
    > compatible, of that you can be sure.


    It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop or a
    netbook or what have you. The behavior is the same. And where exactly did
    the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?

    Hey, I don't see GG posts, so I could have missed it. Enlighten me.

    Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, Jan 21, 2010
    #9
  10. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    freemont <> wrote in
    news:00c8f6ea$0$8186$:

    > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 00:45:56 +0000, chuckcar writ:
    >
    >> freemont <> wrote in
    >> news:00c8d74b$0$8186$:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:30:10 +0000, chuckcar writ:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> You'll see it again and again
    >>>>> with Intel chipsets.
    >>>>
    >>>> You mean like the 810?
    >>>
    >>> No, dumbass. Like the 82915g/gv/910gl in the OP. Learn to read.
    >>>

    >> You *said* "Intel Chipsets" The 810 *was* and is an Intel chipset.
    >> The manufacturer of the chips has absolutely no co-relation to
    >> whether or not a card will take more than one monitor. However if one
    >> *does*, there will be two similiar entries (not necessarily identical
    >> as my Radeon will attest) in display adapters and *always* two in
    >> monitors. One *will* be either the currently used monitor or Plug and
    >> Play monitor and if the second is unconnected *then* you will have
    >> "unknown monitor". However a video card that only takes one monitor
    >> will have two (or more) monitors listed in Dev Man if the drivers are
    >> corrupted.

    >
    > The *OP* said that he saw two *monitors* listed in Device *Manager*
    > and this *confused* *him* because he *has* only one *monitor*. *He*
    > also *said* that *he* *has* the *Intel* 915 *graphics* chip. *He*
    > should *not* *let* the Device *Manager* report bother *him* because,
    > *as* the *site* I linked *to* points *out*, this *is* expected
    > *behavior* from that *chipset*.


    And yet you fail to say how that is any different than what I said could
    be corruption. Nor do you state anything about the secondary display
    device. The above paragraph is symantically null. If you don't see that,
    then you're not qualified to reply to the OP.

    >>>>> They have the capability to work with two monitors (whether or not
    >>>>> there are two adapters) and this capability shows in Device
    >>>>> Manager as two identical adapters. Ignore it.
    >>>>>
    >>>> ROFL. And exactly why would that be?
    >>>
    >>> A quick search turns up:
    >>>
    >>> <http://preview.tinyurl.com/ybxtfu8>
    >>>
    >>> So I guess HP and I are wrong, and Chucktard the Village ID10T of
    >>> USENET is right with his corrupted driver horseshit.
    >>>

    >> What does HP have to do with a Dell Computer? Besides, it doesn't
    >> match what the OP is getting - One entry in display adapters and two
    >> *different* entries in monitors. This is proprietary hardware.
    >> *Every* computer manufacturer will do it differently and their
    >> drivers won't be compatible, of that you can be sure.

    >
    > It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop or
    > a netbook or what have you.


    It sure as hell does. It's *their* hardware. *Not* Intel's. Intel
    drivers won't work on name brand computers. Completely different video
    cards made completely differently.

    The behavior is the same. And where
    > exactly did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?
    >
    > Hey, I don't see GG posts, so I could have missed it. Enlighten me.
    >
    > Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?


    Where exactly did I say that there *could* only be one? I didn't. What I
    said was that you will get similar names *not* identical ones. If you
    get identical ones, then you have corrupted video drivers. In Both cases
    you will have more than one monitor listed - only one is due to an
    error. The only way to know what it's supposed to be is to remove *all*
    the drivers of each and reboot. If you *then* get two monitors and two
    different (but similarly names - such as Radeon XXX and Radeon XXX
    secondary) names for the display adapters then you *know* there's a
    second plug. You will not get the second monitor without a second plug.
    Unless the driver is f*cked from the manufacturer, which could very well
    be the case with the Dell example. Their explanation isn't right or
    anywhere near complete.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 21, 2010
    #10
  11. chuckcar

    freemont Guest

    On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:09:22 +0000, chuckcar writ:

    > And yet you fail to say how that is any different than what I said could
    > be corruption. Nor do you state anything about the secondary display
    > device. The above paragraph is symantically null. If you don't see that,
    > then you're not qualified to reply to the OP.


    First of all, you'll have to provide a link to the definition of
    "symantically". Have you made an adverb out of the antivirus company's
    name?

    Secondly, ever heard of Occam's razor? The OP says he sees duplicate
    entries in Device Manager with a certain type of chipset that is known to
    produce duplicate video entries in DM. It's something that people like me
    - people who have actually worked and are working on computers for a
    living - see every day and have seen hundreds of times. These Intel video
    drivers produce duplicate entries in Windows's Device Manager. They do.
    If you're not familiar with that, then you haven't worked on Windows
    computers or with Intel drivers very much - it's as simple as that. It's
    extremely common. Yet you want to convince the guy that his driver is
    corrupted somehow.

    There's not a damn thing wrong with his video driver unless the same
    thing is wrong with thousands of other driver installations on thousands
    of other computers for the last ten years.

    >> It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop or a
    >> netbook or what have you.

    >
    > It sure as hell does. It's *their* hardware. *Not* Intel's. Intel
    > drivers won't work on name brand computers. Completely different video
    > cards made completely differently.


    Wow. Now there's a classic Chucktard line.

    So Dell builds Intel's chipsets for them now?

    "Intel drivers won't work on name brand computers." HA! Another one for
    the file.

    >> Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?

    >
    > Where exactly did I say that there *could* only be one? I didn't.


    Message-ID: <Xns9D06BEC4B82F1chuck@127.0.0.1>

    <quote>
    Besides, it doesn't match what the OP is getting - One entry in display
    adapters and two *different* entries in monitors.
    </quote>

    > What I
    > said was that you will get similar names *not* identical ones. If you
    > get identical ones, then you have corrupted video drivers. In Both cases
    > you will have more than one monitor listed - only one is due to an
    > error. The only way to know what it's supposed to be is to remove *all*
    > the drivers of each and reboot. If you *then* get two monitors and two
    > different (but similarly names - such as Radeon XXX and Radeon XXX
    > secondary) names for the display adapters then you *know* there's a
    > second plug. You will not get the second monitor without a second plug.
    > Unless the driver is f*cked from the manufacturer, which could very well
    > be the case with the Dell example. Their explanation isn't right or
    > anywhere near complete.


    First, it was an HP example. Second, no one on Earth would ever take your
    opinion over their expertise.

    Third, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, as usual. I
    am someone who actually does in "real life" what you pretend to do
    online, and I can see that as plain as day.

    OP, I say again: just ignore it. It's "normal" for your computer to show
    what it's showing.
    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, Jan 21, 2010
    #11
  12. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    freemont <> wrote in
    news:00d05045$0$1614$:

    > On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 02:09:22 +0000, chuckcar writ:
    >
    >> And yet you fail to say how that is any different than what I said
    >> could be corruption. Nor do you state anything about the secondary
    >> display device. The above paragraph is symantically null. If you
    >> don't see that, then you're not qualified to reply to the OP.

    >
    > First of all, you'll have to provide a link to the definition of
    > "symantically". Have you made an adverb out of the antivirus company's
    > name?
    >
    > Secondly, ever heard of Occam's razor? The OP says he sees duplicate
    > entries in Device Manager with a certain type of chipset that is known
    > to produce duplicate video entries in DM.



    Yes, I've heard of it - and it only applies if there are no other
    constraining rules or facts. Which isn't the case here. It best applies
    for Scientific hypothese. That is cases where there's no empirical evidence
    or mathematics to clarify things. *if* the OP could post again (probably
    scared off by our argument) we could find out if there are indeed two
    different display adapter entries for the same card. However that would
    require two plugs for video - which the OP says he doesn't have.

    > It's something that people
    > like me - people who have actually worked and are working on computers
    > for a living - see every day and have seen hundreds of times. These
    > Intel video drivers produce duplicate entries in Windows's Device
    > Manager. They do. If you're not familiar with that, then you haven't
    > worked on Windows computers or with Intel drivers very much - it's as
    > simple as that. It's extremely common. Yet you want to convince the
    > guy that his driver is corrupted somehow.
    >

    Which is far *more* common - at least historically. I've seen my
    assertion literally hundereds of times as well - working for one of
    those name brand computer companies doing telephone tech support for two
    years. Multiple monitors on one video card is a recent thing. The mere
    fact that you have no knowledge of display driver corruption makes your
    assertion about expertise extremely doubtful.

    > There's not a damn thing wrong with his video driver unless the same
    > thing is wrong with thousands of other driver installations on
    > thousands of other computers for the last ten years.
    >

    I never said that. I *did* say there's something not right with that HP
    problem,

    >>> It doesn't make a damn whether it's in an HP or a Dell or a laptop
    >>> or a netbook or what have you.

    >>
    >> It sure as hell does. It's *their* hardware. *Not* Intel's. Intel
    >> drivers won't work on name brand computers. Completely different
    >> video cards made completely differently.

    >


    > So Dell builds Intel's chipsets for them now?
    >

    No Intel builds *only* the chips. The video card and/or motherboard are
    built by Dell/HP/IBM/Gateway etc.

    > "Intel drivers won't work on name brand computers." HA! Another one
    > for the file.
    >

    Better keep it. The 810 example I gave is a perfect example. The drivers
    for Intel's video card don't work or even load on a HP computer with an
    810 chipset. Fact.

    >>> Where did the OP say that he saw only one entry in display adapters?

    >>
    >> Where exactly did I say that there *could* only be one? I didn't.

    >
    > Message-ID: <Xns9D06BEC4B82F1chuck@127.0.0.1>
    >


    > <quote>
    > Besides, it doesn't match what the OP is getting - One entry in
    > display adapters and two *different* entries in monitors.
    > </quote>
    >

    Which is *more* than one entry in display adapters. You're wrong, and
    your own quote showed it. Ignoring your creative editing out of my actual
    meaning.

    >> What I
    >> said was that you will get similar names *not* identical ones. If you
    >> get identical ones, then you have corrupted video drivers. In Both
    >> cases you will have more than one monitor listed - only one is due to
    >> an error. The only way to know what it's supposed to be is to remove
    >> *all* the drivers of each and reboot. If you *then* get two monitors
    >> and two different (but similarly names - such as Radeon XXX and
    >> Radeon XXX secondary) names for the display adapters then you *know*
    >> there's a second plug. You will not get the second monitor without a
    >> second plug. Unless the driver is f*cked from the manufacturer, which
    >> could very well be the case with the Dell example. Their explanation
    >> isn't right or anywhere near complete.

    >
    > First, it was an HP example. Second, no one on Earth would ever take
    > your opinion over their expertise.
    >

    The fact that you express that view only means you don't know anything
    about what I have done here for the posters in the past going back
    almost 10 years.

    > Third, you don't know what in the hell you're talking about, as usual.
    > I am someone who actually does in "real life" what you pretend to do
    > online, and I can see that as plain as day.
    >
    > OP, I say again: just ignore it. It's "normal" for your computer to
    > show what it's showing.


    And what *precisely* is that? You seem to not know the difference
    between two identical entries for the video card and a dual entry for
    two parts of the same card. Whithout being able to tell the difference,
    your opinion doesn't mean anything.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 21, 2010
    #12
  13. chuckcar

    freemont Guest

    On Thu, 21 Jan 2010 09:47:29 -0800, Evan Platt writ:

    > On 21 Jan 2010 03:00:11 GMT, freemont
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>First of all, you'll have to provide a link to the definition of
    >>"symantically". Have you made an adverb out of the antivirus company's
    >>name?

    >
    > Notice chucktard completely ignores that part of your message? :)


    He's an idiot. I can't believe I got suckered into another argument with
    him. I've gotta be more careful. :)

    /me shakes head in shame and resists the urge to respond to his latest
    response full of inaccuracies, evasions and outright deceptions

    --
    "Because all you of Earth are idiots!"
    ¯`·.¸¸.·´¯`·-> freemont© <-·´¯`·.¸¸.·´¯
    freemont, Jan 21, 2010
    #13
  14. chuckcar

    Jordon Guest

    chuckcar wrote:
    > freemont wrote in
    >> chuckcar writ:


    >> Secondly, ever heard of Occam's razor? The OP says he sees duplicate
    >> entries in Device Manager with a certain type of chipset that is known
    >> to produce duplicate video entries in DM.


    > Yes, I've heard of it - and it only applies if there are no other
    > constraining rules or facts.


    Bull shit. It's dependent on there being other possible answers.
    When you have two or more competing theories the simplest is
    usually the correct one.

    --
    Jordon
    Jordon, Jan 21, 2010
    #14
  15. chuckcar wrote:

    > The fact that you express that view only means you don't know anything
    > about what I have done here for the posters in the past going back
    > almost 10 years.


    Thanks for that! I needed a good laugh today!

    (Everyone who has been here more than a few days knows what you've
    done...)

    --
    -bts
    -Four wheels carry the body; two wheels move the soul
    Beauregard T. Shagnasty, Jan 21, 2010
    #15
  16. chuckcar

    chuckcar Guest

    "Me" <> wrote in
    news::

    >
    > "chuckcar" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns9D05C11F22797chuck@127.0.0.1...


    > Nope, still comes back
    >

    A followup. You never posted after this one.

    I checked the Dell website and they mention a Dimension 3100/E310. Is
    that your computer? They have drivers for your card there. That would be
    the first alternate thing to try.

    Specifically three versions apparently - they never say either way.

    http://search.dell.com/results.aspx?c=us&l=en&cat=all&k=intel 82915g/
    gv%2F910gl


    There's also the online forum, but there seems to be a *lot* more people
    asking questions than actually getting answers. Perhaps Dell people
    don't post there every day.

    http://en.community.dell.com/forums/t/18552588.aspx?c=us&l=en&cs=&s=gen

    A relevent thread, although making a new one wouldn't be wrong I'd
    think. A couple quick questions if you feel like posting here.

    1. Do you get more than one entry in display adapters and if so what
    are their *exact* names. Or the exact full name for the one as the case
    may be.

    2. What are the *exact* names all for the Listings under Monitors that
    you get

    3. What is the full model name for your actual monitor?

    4. Just to ensure we understand each other completely, There is *only*
    one video plug on the back of your computer? I don't just mean where you
    have the one you're using, but only one at *all*.

    Finally, this *may* also be an indication of a dying video card.


    Entering the BIOS and setting defaults and then saving them is
    *always* a safe thing to do in name brand consumer PC's. It might
    also be a corrupted BIOS NVRAm and that will fix that problem.

    Finally *only* after Someone from Dell says that this *is* a problem with
    your computer should you attempt to update either your video or system BIOS.
    If this is recommended, make *sure* you save a backup of whichever you do (or
    both) when this update is done. And make *absolutely* sure you have the *exact*
    right BIOS for your hardware. If you get it wrong, that hardware will no longer
    work at *all* and will have to be replaced.

    --
    (setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
    chuckcar, Jan 23, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. John Ramsden
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    880
    John Ramsden
    Jul 24, 2004
  2. Rene Kuhn
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    892
    Rene Kuhn
    Dec 28, 2005
  3. Grimtooth

    Device Manager shows too many entries

    Grimtooth, Oct 9, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,273
    leftnutrzr
    Oct 9, 2003
  4. Re: Double entries in Device Manager

    , Dec 19, 2008, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    445
  5. Ferd.Berfle

    Re: duplicate entries in device manager

    Ferd.Berfle, Jan 19, 2010, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    377
    Ferd.Berfle
    Feb 3, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page