Linked by Eugenia Loli on Tue 10th Apr 2007 19:24 UTC, submitted by Charl P. Botha
Permalink for comment 229301
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 15:53 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 22:43 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 21:50 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2005-07-08
Why aren't 1440x900, 1680x1050, etc. not supported?
The chipset in his laptop is not supported by any open source driver, so Feisty defaults to the 'vesa' driver. The vesa driver is generally considered a failsafe driver and. I'm going to hazard a guess that it tries to use the minimum configuration it thinks it can get away with. If it starts up X at 1440x900, and the monitor doesn't support it, the user doesn't see anything, which is certainly a worse situation :-)