[rescue] 1600SW and refresh rates

[Phil Stracchino]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 12:48:27AM -0400, Tim H. wrote:
> since I am running an 8200 w/ ultraharp right now, my guess would be
> either non-optimal resolution (physical pixel grid is 1600x1200) or
> maybe you actually have a problem, or maybe you have eyes that just
> happen to see a frequency harmonic the display uses.  I make it a
> practice on digital LCDs to always run at physical resolution.  In fact,
> 1600x1200 is the reason I bought this laptop.

Ooh!  You can bet a 1600x1200 screen on a laptop now?  Cool.  :)  One of
the reasons I've never had much use for laptops, besides their cost and
short bettery life, has been the relatively low-resolution screens.  I
had an acute case of lust at one point over a HP Omnibook 6000 ....  it
was a *sweet* machine, except that the highest-resolution screen you
could get was 1024x768.

(I was also told later that its ATI Rage Mobility M1 chipset sucked
 goose eggs through drinking straws for 3D.)


-- 
 .*********  Fight Back!  It may not be just YOUR life at risk.  *********.
 : phil stracchino : unix ronin : renaissance man : mystic zen biker geek :
 :  alaric at caerllewys.net : alaric-ruthven at earthlink.net : phil at latt.net  :
 :   2000 CBR929RR, 1991 VFR750F3 (foully murdered), 1986 VF500F (sold)   :
 :    Linux Now!   ...Because friends don't let friends use Microsoft.    :