To: | rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org |
---|---|
Subject: | Re: LF: Argo screen height... |
From: | "Nick Foot" <maad65@dial.pipex.com> |
Date: | Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:48:06 GMT |
In-reply-to: | <005d01c1917a$ed5fca00$8f9a17d2@steve> |
References: | <3C2FBE1A.93964090@ns.sympatico.ca> <005d01c1917a$ed5fca00$8f9a17d2@steve> |
Reply-to: | rsgb_lf_group@blacksheep.org |
Sender: | <majordom@post.thorcom.com> |
On Mon, 31 Dec 2001 08:42:38 +1100, you wrote: Why 320 lines ?? Well, for 640 x 480 resolution (480 vertically) that is approximately what is left over after space is taken for menu bars and status lines. The only way around this would be a version for a screen resolution of 1024 x 768 The other way of increasing displayed bandwidth is to calculate and store the results for a greater bandwidth and then to be able to 'pan' the screen window across this increased bandwidth looking at any 320 line segment within the stored area. I am not offering to code this though!! Nick |
<Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread> |
---|---|---|
|
Previous by Date: | LF: 136, john currie |
---|---|
Next by Date: | LF: What a pile-up !, Alberto di Bene |
Previous by Thread: | LF: Re: Re: Argo screen height..., Steve Olney |
Next by Thread: | LF: Re: 136 tonight, Dave Pick |
Indexes: | [Date] [Thread] [Top] [All Lists] |