-=> ROY J. TELLASON wrote to WAYNE CHIRNSIDE <=-

 WC> You've got me. Caught me by surprise when Win 98 just tried to ID
 WC> my monitor, but could not.

 RJT> I never could figure that out...

Me neither, understandable for Linux as you configure your own
drivers resolutions but Windows?
I mean I'm running an old Packard Bell monitor at very close
to the maximum resolution and all is well.

 RJT> Always thought that those video connectors on the card to the monitor
 RJT> were all *outputs*.

 Same here, appears that may be different with the newer monitors.
 I guess newer monitors are plug and play with Windows sensing
 what it can handle.

 WC> I can mess up the sync by trying to set resolution too high but in
 WC> point of fact like Charles A. was speaking of I'm thinking of
 WC> reseting my resolution _downwards_ for readability.

 RJT> The w98 box here is stuck at 640x480,  as that's all that particular
 RJT> monitor can handle.

The monitor on the NEC box is like that, old Goldstar and it won't
_quite_ sync up on Windows 98.

 RJT> The linux box is at 800x600,  the monitor will
 RJT> supposedly do 1024x768,

The latter figure is what I'm running 98 at and it'll go one
higher before the sync slips.

 RJT? but I have some bugs to get out of the
 RJT> modelines in the config file before that's working right.  I also have
 RJT> an IBM monitor here that'll only do 640x480 and 1024x768,  but _not_
 RJT> 800x600 for some strange reason -- was told that before I got it.  I
 RJT> had that hooked up to the OS/2 box and at the higher resolution things
 RJT> got very small.

That is a problem for me.

 RJT> I can see higher resolutions if you have a bigger monitor.  The trouble
 RJT> with that is that bigger monitors are also way deeper,  and I have too
 RJT> much stuff on this desk as it is,  I'd lose a lot of space.

Landlady sprung for a 21 inch flat screen and loves it.
She has two other monitors lying about and I must ask her about
buying one before they go south as in addition to caps
deforming she lives on the water.
She already offered them to me but she'd just
arranged for the H.P. I'm using so I turned them down.

 RJT> The one at
 RJT> work is bigger than anything I have here and the default with that is I
 RJT> think 1024x768,  I kicked it up to whatever the next step is beyond
 RJT> that.  It'll go higher,  but that's about the limit of what I can deal
 RJT> with.  It lets me get more on the screen.

I'm not crowded here so I could easily go 640 x 480 but what would
that do to the ladies of alt.binary.pictures.erotic.brunette ;-)

 RJT> OTOH,  on the linux box I don't want to go below 800x600 as a bunch of
 RJT> stuff in X just doesn't seem to work right -- the buttons you need to
 RJT> click on are off the bottom of the screen,  etc.  Yet I've already
 RJT> kicked the default font size up a notch or two just to make it easier
 RJT> to read.

 Yes those are nice options to have, large fonts, and I do recall
 running Xconfig with 800 x 600 as being the bottom end
 of options offered for X-Windows. 

 RJT> One nice thing about the browser window that's currently on the screen
 RJT> is a pair of magnifying glass icons on the toolbar,  one with a + next
 RJT> to it,  and one with a -.  These will let you get real comfortable and
 RJT> scale things to whatever works for you...

I need to get back to the NEC which has Linux on it
but I also need to slow down for a bit.
Definately will get Linux going when I switch ISP's as I
expect my authorization SMTP problem to vanish.
See post to me from paul Williams in last packet regarding an ISP
at 10 dollars a momth where he claims nationwide numbers.
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5