interesting tablets

[D. Hugh Redelmeier]

| From: David Collier-Brown <davec-b-bJEeYj9oJeDQT0dZR+AlfA at public.gmane.org>

| 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