Re: LF: Argo screen height...

To:	[email protected]
Subject:	Re: LF: Argo screen height...
From:	"Nick Foot" <[email protected]>
Date:	Mon, 31 Dec 2001 07:48:06 GMT
In-reply-to:	<005d01c1917a$ed5fca00$8f9a17d2@steve>
References:	<[email protected]> <005d01c1917a$ed5fca00$8f9a17d2@steve>
Reply-to:	[email protected]
Sender:	<[email protected]>

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>
LF: 136 tonight, Laurie Mayhead LF: Re: 136 tonight, Alberto di Bene LF: 136 tonight, john currie LF: Argo screen height..., Steve Olney LF: Re: Argo screen height..., Alberto di Bene LF: Re: Re: Argo screen height..., Steve Olney Re: LF: Argo screen height..., Nick Foot <= LF: Re: 136 tonight, Dave Pick LF: Re: Re: 136 tonight, John Andrews LF: 136 tonight, David Sparvell LF: Re: 136 tonight, Dave Pick Re: LF: Re: 136 tonight, john currie LF: 136 tonight, john currie

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]