Jump to content


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.

Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.



  • Please log in to reply
1 reply to this topic

#1 bbulbb


  • Members
  • 40 posts
  • Local time:03:05 AM

Posted 19 February 2008 - 04:23 AM

With a difference of 260 x150 ( too low ) in resolution 16:10 screen, would it still display and how well ??
would it prevent it from displaying well set that much too low from the native resolution ? :thumbsup:

BC AdBot (Login to Remove)


#2 Platypus


  • Global Moderator
  • 15,789 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Australia
  • Local time:07:05 PM

Posted 19 February 2008 - 06:37 AM

The monitor and the computer's video card would both have to be able to support such a resolution. You'd need to check specifications for both to see if they were capable of using it. I'd suspect 320 x 200 might be the lower limit normally. If they could display the lower resolution, it would of course be very blocky, and as it's not 16:10, squares wouldn't be quite square etc.
Top 5 things that never get done:


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users