Bill wrote:
Rene Lamontagne wrote:

But so far I am not too happy with the settings software, Intel
Graphics Control Panel, It has only brightness and contrast, no hue
and saturation controls and I find that my display is a little light
on saturation. Hue is good.

I think people whose needs are sophisticated enough to critique their
graphics, as above, are not among the intended users of "built-in"
graphics. Maybe things will improve in the future...built in audio was a
success.

There's nothing wrong technically with the Intel graphics.
They did acquire some talent to make shaders that work
and so on. But the fit and finish of a lot of
application level software at Intel, leaves a lot
to be desired. Bloated nonsense. I remember in
particular having to download a 50MB file, to get
a 20KB driver file just to clean up Device Manager,
and the rest of the 50MB of stuff, threatened to
break stuff, so I had to remove it! So it would
not be a surprise, if they wasted a few man-years
making a buttery GUI on something, and then the
feature set in the GUI was perfectly useless.

While you can use a Monitor file (a driver for the monitor),
not all products support that. Some of those files
have a color calibration file (.icm?), which captures the
general characteristics of the monitor. My current
monitor has such a file, but I had to turn over a
lot of rocks, to find that one. Some monitor brands,
never receive such a file (Westinghouse?). You can also buy a
Spyder calibrator, with suction cups, and do an
actual calibration on the whole subsystem. If the
Intel software is any good at all, it should accept
a calibration scheme like that (custom ICM), and
the colors should be adjusted accordingly.

When that is the case, you might see one set of
colors just as the desktop appears, and maybe
30 seconds later, you'll see a second set of
preferences seem to take hold. Some of these
schemes (such as the Adobe Gamma plugin one
of my setups seems to have acquired) take
their sweet time being applied.

Paul