home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware
- Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!bruce.cs.monash.edu.au!monu6!yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au!kevinlu
- From: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Kevin Lu)
- Subject: Re: Explain this .. 1kx768x256 on an interlaced monitor??
- Message-ID: <1992Aug26.111128.24609@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au>
- Sender: news@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Usenet system)
- Organization: Monash University General Access Unix
- X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL5
- References: <cee1.714637155@Isis.MsState.Edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:11:28 GMT
- Lines: 33
-
- Charles Evans (cee1@ra.msstate.edu) wrote:
- : Tell me how this can be.
- :
- : I have had my Seiko CM-1430 Interlaced (1024x768x16) max resoultion
- : monitor for about 3 years.. way back to my 286/12 with 512k STB EM-16
- : (ET3000) card. Well now, I have my 386/40 .. with 1MB Trident 8900C and
- : I was foolin with the modetest and all the sudden, 1024x768x256 screen
- : color thingy came up!!! perfectly.. Now, I am running WIndows 3.1 in
- : 1024ni mode.. HOW? my Monitor book doesnt even hint that it will show
- : ni? i mean, it flickers a bit, ESPECILLY on the borders in Ami Pro 2.0
- : but it works!! how ???
- :
- : chuck
- :
-
- Well my TVM MD-11 (about 5-6 years old) can do 1024*768*256. Since you'd
- be probably running in Analog mode, the number of colours you could
- display **might** be infinite (well 256 at least). I think that it's the
- scanning rate of the monitor (vertical and horizontal) that make the diff,
- as that determines what resolution you get (i.e 800*600, 320*200 etc).
-
- Oh well, if it works, don't complain! :')
-
- Kev.
-
- +----------------------------------------+-------------------------------+
- | Kevin Lu | Monash University |
- | Email: kevinlu@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au | Clayton, Victoria |
- | | Australia |
-
-
-
-
-