Andy Stewart wrote:
When I run X and then run xvidtune, when I'm in 1024x768 mode, it indicates a refresh of 60 Hz. However, when I run in 800x600 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is around 90Hz, and in 640x480 mode, xvidtune thinks the refresh rate is 131 Hz(!). I'm not sure I believe it since I don't think the display can handle that (but if it is true, am I seriously overdriving the display?).
I don't think so. The usual concerns about cooking monitors arise out of the use of the horizontal sync on TV's etc to provide the 25 or so KV needed for electron acceleration. When you are generating 25 KV even at a very low current the power goes up a lot. Hence, the horizontal system is usually engineered near the limit and this is why it is dangerous to exceed those design values. The LCD panel does not have this electron accelerating potential so the above does not apply.
Also note that in the lower resolution modes, the display actually looks a tad fuzzy. I am not using anti-aliased fonts.
As already noted by Brian and Chuck, that is par for the course. An LCD is very simple. It is an array of dots 1024 by 768 in your case, 800 by 600 in mine. Thus the video driver expects exactly that number and, if you ask for anything else will either have to interpolate (hence the fuzzy) or just use a subset (the small screen Chuck notes). The bottom line is that using screen resolutions other than that innate to the screen is pointless. One exception of relevance to you as mother superior of WLUG. If you are in Kinnicutt and want to use the projector, you may have to drop back to a resolution the projector can digest. :-) Incidentally, if the 1024 by 768 gives fonts that are too small, you can usually change font size in the application (not a problem for you but I am getting to the point where eyesight limitations are starting to be noticeable :-( )
Is this normal for laptops or am I doing something wrong?
Yes, yes. :-) doug