Re: : interesting tablets
"D. Hugh Redelmeier" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.user-groups.linux.tolug |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
| From: David Collier-Brown <[email protected]> | I'm limited to: | 1600x900 60.0*+ | 1280x1024 60.0 | 1440x900 59.9 | 1280x720 60.0 | 1024x768 60.0 | on a second display, 1024x600 on the built-in because of some | quasi-artificial "video memory" limit. Wow. The early Atoms used a 945GSE chipset with gma950 video which should handle up to 2048x1536 at 75Hz according to Intel <http://www.intel.com/products/chipsets/gma950/index.htm> (I've read somewhere that these chipsets were limited to 2G of RAM whereas I said 4G was the limit.) Perhaps if you trun off the built-in display it can get higher res. I've heard that the widths get added. (1600 + 1024) x 900 might be challenging. A 1600 x 900 x 4 frame buffer only takes 5.76MB -- not actually very much. | The difference in i/o speed for bunches of small files for c and c++ | compiles is quite small, as it's the directory | traversal code that's the bottleneck. Surely not the code. That'd be sad. But I guess that all relevant directories could be in the cache. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://gtalug.org/ TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://gtalug.org/wiki/Mailing_lists