On Fri, 18 Jun 1999, Don Kelley wrote:
> PS. I mean that I can only get up to 800x600 on my 14" monitor, hence the wish
> that I could get up to 1024x768. I don't mean that I can get 1600x1200 on my
> 14!! Just thought I'd clarify upon re-reading my last email...
Oh, well, now THAT makes a bit more sense. :) Perhaps your monitor simply is
not meant to handle a resolution that high, at least not at whatever color
depth you chose (keep in mind a monitor/video card might be able to handle a
certain resolution at 256 colors or 16-bit, but not 24-bit, etc.)? If you have
the instructions for both, I'd suggest checking both of them to see their best
resolutions/color-depths.
Also, if you've been using Windoze, keep in mind that what Windoze lets you do
isn't necessarily an indication of what your hardware is supposed to be able to
do. In my experience Windoze doesn't do as good a job of figuring out the
limitations of your hardware.
For example, up until recently I had an old 14" monitor that wasn't meant to do
any resolution above 640x480, but Win95 let me use it at 800x600 with a 24-bit
color depth; the display wasn't completely clear, but useable. However, in
Linux, X would not let me use any resolution above 640x480 since it knew that
was the best my monitor was supposed to be able to do.
-Tom
P.S. KDE in a 640x480 resolution really, really, really sucked. ;) I love my
new 17"er.
