On Sun, 2004-03-21 at 11:53, JoeHill wrote: > On Sat, 20 Mar 2004 19:37:48 +0000 > Langsley T Russell disseminated the following: > > > I'm not sure just which changes made the difference as I made several at > > one time. In the end I realized that the highest resolution I could > > achieve is 1280X960. Nothing I do will get it to use 1280X1024 <Whackaroony> > IIANM, 1280x1024 is kind of an 'unnatural' resolution, no? It generally follows > a 4:3 ratio, which is the natural dimensions of most monitors (excepting the > 'theatre' type displays, of course).
Normal Displays - listen up SchmoeGill: 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024, 1600x1200 Make a note, empty your bong, clear your mind, drink green tea. Mind the catepillar. stephen kuhn - owner ============================== illawarra computer services a kuhn media australia company http://kma.0catch.com ------------------------------------------------------------------ * This message was composed on a 100% Microsoft free computer * We expressly refuse to utilise Microsoft DRM encoded documents ------------------------------------------------------------------ There are more ways of killing a cat than choking her with cream.
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft? Go to http://www.mandrakestore.com ____________________________________________________ Join the Club : http://www.mandrakeclub.com
