1680x1050 resolution not working (Fedora Core 2, Dell Inspiron 8600, WSXGA+)

[alan]

On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Joel Jaeggli wrote:

> On Mon, 16 Aug 2004, Robert P. J. Day wrote:
> >
> > a bit of a digression, is there any sane rationale to the myriad of acronyms 
> > for display resolution?
> 
> marketing. xga was the IBM eXtended Graphics Adapter which supported 
> 1024x768 albiet interlaced. for the longest time all resultions above 
> that were typically described by h v and refresh rate. Then some marketing 
> droid got a wild hare and now here we are... lcd's simplify things a lot 
> since most of them are designed to work at 60hz as there native 
> refresh rate. There used to be a serious qualitative difference 
> between at crt at 1600x1200x60hz and one at 75 or 80 that doesn't exist 
> when comparing lcd panels in general.

There is a difference, but not one you can usually get data on.  That is 
how fast the pixels refresh.  

My old dual twist monitor on my old P-90 laptop would leave vapor trails.  
Playing Doom was interesting.  Like being drunk while playing.

> >  the last two times i went looking to buy a laptop 
> > (from dell), i was thoroughly annoyed that they'll list, right up front, that 
> > a unit has something like XGA, or SXGA, or XGA+, or UXGA or whatever.  and 
> > all i want to know is, what is the freaking resolution in pixels?

The HP i was looking at today had a WUXGA screen.  I was starting to 
wonder what variety of Kung Fu they taught it.


> >
> > is there a standard for these acronyms?  and does everyone follow that 
> > standard, or do we have vendors just making this stuff up out of thin air?  i 
> > fully expect to see new laptops offering SDXGA (sooper dooper XGA) as the 
> > next available resolution.
> >
> > is there a list?  who do i have to kill to read it?
> >
> > rday
> >
> >
> >
> 
>