SPONSORED LINKS
At 08:04 PM 7/2/97 -0700, Peter Lewis wrote: >So I upped the colors to 16-bit and restarted as prompted. > >The truth, though, is that the 701C (active matrix) display doesn't look a >whole lot different to me than when it was at 256k. Bring a 24-bit color .jpg file into view--you'll see the difference. Not much difference to see between 64K colors and 16.7 Mil. colors, but between 256 colors and 64K colors, the difference is quite plain to see. But its not the kind of thing you'll see much of with plain old software--icons & the like. Bring up a web page with photos--the JPG kind, not the GIF kind (since GIF is limited to 256 colors)--and you'll see the difference. >When I called IBM Tech Support, I was told the hardware limitations on the >701C are 640x480 and 256 colors, and that's the best I'd get no matter what >the display settings said. Not true. The 701C (active matrix, right?) has a limitation that is in the thousands of colors. Works just fine and there is a visible difference between that and only 256 colors. >Some of you have suggested I'd a different driver to support the higher >colors, but IBM dumped on that notion. If you're using even some older drivers for Win 95, it'll do well into the thousands of colors. Now if you're talking about a 701CS--or dual-scan passive-matrix--yeah, I think you're limited to a lower number of colors. ------- Randal J. Whittle whittle@usc.edu (213) 740-7775 Director, Electronic Commerce Program Marshall School of Business, University of Southern California