1440 x 900 resolution on X200

I have an X200s that supports 1440 x 900 resolution but my x200 only goes up to 1280 x 800 but appears to use the same chipset. How can I get my x200 up to 1440 x 900 resolution?
thanks.

you need a new WXGA+ LCD, i think that would cost around around 400 to 600 dollars.
Regards,
Jin Li
May this year, be the year of 'DO'!
I am a volunteer, and not a paid staff of Lenovo or Microsoft

Similar Messages

1440 x 900 resolution DVI?

Will my Dual Core Mac Mini support 1440 x 900 resolution if I buy a Widescreen TFT LCD Monitor?
Mac Mini Intel Dual Core, 2gb RAM Mac OS X (10.4.8)

There's no doubt the mini supports the resolution, and if the system correctly detects and identifies the display when connected, it would generally set itself to the display's default or native resolution, and offer (in the display preference panel) any other settings the display supports.
However, not all displays are correctly detected, and if not, initially the system will set itself to a low resolution default. If that happens, the display preference panel will not show the correct display model number, but you should be able to set it by clicking the 'detect display' button to force the system to check.
In a very few instances (and with some TVs connected) the system will still not correctly detect the display, in which case a third party utility such as SwitchResX would be needed. It rarely is for dedicated displays however, usually only for TVs.

Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air 1.8GHz dual-core Intel Core i5 Originally released June 2012 13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 1440-by-900 resolution 4GB memory 256GB flash storage 720p FaceTime HD camera Intel HD Graphics 4

Is $1019 a good price?

Can you tell me why you don't think its a good buy? Someone bought it that must have thought it was a good buy? You?!!!
I had a macbook pro, spilled an entire latte on it. Cannot afford to drop another 1500 on a new one. I understand the air is a great machine. And for someone that is hard on equipment (aside from liquid!) with no moving parts its a better option. This one is priced at $929 - good?
Refurbished 13.3-inch MacBook Air 1.3GHz dual-core Intel Core i5
Originally released June 2013
13.3-inch (diagonal) LED-backlit glossy widescreen display, 1440-by-900 resolution
4GB memory
128GB flash storage
720p FaceTime HD camera
Intel HD Graphics 5000

NX6600 VTD128E Diamond Edition does it support 1440 x 900 resolution

Hi everybody
This is my first posting to this forum. I soon have all the parts together to build my new rig. The only thing missing is the monitor. I am very interested in the ViewSonic VA1912w which is a 19" LCD Wide Screen Monitor with the resolution 1440 x 900. To get the full performance the Graphic card should be able to support this resolution. Thanks for your advice.

the graphic card should be able to do it, just make sure you install the monitor driver, which will either be on a disk included with it, or you may have to download it from the manufacturer's website, or through Windows Update

Support for 1440 X 900 resolution

Does anyone know if I will be able to use the native resolution of 1440 X 900 with the NVIDIA GeForce 6600 LE with 128MB GDDR SDRAM?
Thanks

Hi, SophiaHat and a Warm Welcome to Apple Discussions and the G5 Power Mac forum!
Do you have or are you buying a dual-core G5 with the PCI Express graphics?
http://www.apple.com/powermac/graphics.html
Which display do you have or are getting?
Can you link to the exact card you are thinking about?

Macbook Pro 15" high-res 1440 x 900 setting using SwitchResX

Hi,
I have Macbook Pro wiht15" high-res display. But I seems I can set the 1440x900 resolution by default option. There is only 1440x852... thouth I can't understand it.
Anyway, someone seems to enable 1440 x 900 resolution with SwitchResX. I also tried to do it. But I can't make it because I have no information the timing parameter. So Is there someone have the information for 1440x900 resolution?
Thanks in advance!

Hi,
I have Macbook Pro wiht15" high-res display. But I seems I can set the 1440x900 resolution by default option. There is only 1440x852... thouth I can't understand it.
Anyway, someone seems to enable 1440 x 900 resolution with SwitchResX. I also tried to do it. But I can't make it because I have no information the timing parameter. So Is there someone have the information for 1440x900 resolution?
Thanks in advance!

Resolution 1440 x 900 for Windows applications?

I am attempting to use MacBook Pro (15") to run Windows applications. Some of these are written for a screen resolution of 1280 x 1050, but the max available on the MBP is seemingly 1440 x 900. Is there any way around this, short of buying an external monitor or the 17" MBP?

I was thinking of a solution along the lines of, maybe the device handlers could reduce the Windows app image to the lower native resolution, which could then be displayed.

Why do 15.4" Macbook Pro's not support resolutions greater than 1440 x 900?

Hi.
I am a Microsoft .net software developer and am seriously considering getting a Macbook Pro to do some iPhone development. My company has provided me with a 15.4" Dell Precision M4400 that features an LED-backlit screen and nVidia Quadro FX 770M discrete graphics card, supporting 1920 x 1200 native resolution. I'd like to know why the 15.4" Macbook Pro's do not support anything greater than 1440 x 900 when it seems entirely possible? I understand that 17" MBP's do support 1920 x 1200 but it is not currently an option I'm considering pursuing due to the increased size and weight.
Thanks.
Jon
Message was edited by: jonb86uk

Just to be clear, since you're bringing up graphics cards - the 15" MBP supports up to 2560x1600 resolution on an external display, and simultaneously supports full native resolution on the internal display. As Phil points out, the native resolution of the 15" MBP's internal display is 1440x900, and Apple does not offer a higher resolution option for that model (although higher resolution 15" displays do exist). As to why that's the case, only Apple can answer that or change that.
You can submit feedback to Apple: http://www.apple.com/feedback/macbookpro.html.
As you know, if you want to use the iPhone SDK, you need an Intel-based Mac running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard.
Ps. Welcome back, Phil!!

Older Macbook Pro Resolution stuck at 1440 x 900

I have mid 2011 Macbook Pro 13" 2.53 GHz Intel Core i5 running 10.6.6. Recently it has developed a problem with the resolution settings. The highest resolution I can achieve is 1440 x 900 in Syetem prefs. It also means that i cannot see all the screen at one time. I have tried to delete any prefs I can see with Displays in them and it has made no difference.
Has anybody seen this problem before I have never come across anything like this before. I am currently downloading the 10.6.8 combo update and may try an update to Mountain Lion if this doesn't work.
Thank you in advance

You know what I can't remember, pehaps its not the resolution that's the problem, it's just that I cannot see the whole screen at once as if it has been zoomed, but as far as I can tell it hasn't. Made me think a bit differently about it. Thanks

13" Cannot set screen resolution in Windows 7 to 1440 by 900

Just finished installing BootCamp with Windows 7 Pro. For some reason the screen resolution in Windows display driver only goes up to 1200 not 1440 x 900. On MacOS it is obviously working fine. Any ideas?

On my MacBook Air 11 with Windows 7 64 bit I experience an even worse situation: when ever trying to install a NVidia driver (also when following the mentioned instructions) the setup executable reports - after a check of system compatibility - that no compatible graphic hardware (=320m) could be found. Luckily at least MacOS X is aware of a NVidia 320m installed.
Any Idea? Thanks

Increasing screen resolution beyond 1440 x 900

Hello, is there a way to increase the screen resolution beyond 1440 x 900? The result I'm hoping for is one I can accomplish in Windows in that it creates a sort of virtual screen that becomes viewable when one moves the mouse pointer to that which is off-screen, thus bringing it on screen.
The entire desktop would shift to display only that 1440 x 900 of the, say, 1920 x 1200. I don't know what this is technically termed and I hope I've explained it well enough. Thanks!

Check out VirtueDesktops - OSX 10.5 Leopard has 'Spaces' built-in which is very similar

1440 x 900 native resolution?

1440 x 900 native resolution, is this used for wide screen monitors?
Art

Yes, that is a typical resolution for 19" wide monitors.

Screen Resolution 1440 x 900

I have a MS-6533E Motherboard (I think it is also known as 6533XG.
I am using the onboard video and cannot get the resolution of 1440 x 900 to display with my acer monitor AL1916W.
I have updated to latest video drivers but still no luck.
Can anyone please assist?
Thanks

Hi this is usually caused when the display drivers are not installed correctly. Firstly you could try updating your monitor drivers, as this defines what resolution your monitors supports etc.

Why is 1440 x 900 "Best" for the Retina Screen per Apple?

Okay, in the System Preferences folder you can set the new MBP-R screen to one of the following settings with the description Apple provides by going to the System Preferences folder, then choosing "Displays", then unselecting the default "Best for Retina display" button by choosing instead the, "scaled" button. When you do that, you get the following choices with warnings on four of the five choices (for a screen shot see the link below):
1024 x 640, Larger Text, "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
1280 x 800, "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
1440 x 900, Best (Retina)
1680 x 1050 "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
1920 x 1200. More space, "Using a scaled resolution may effect performance."
There is no option for native 2880 x 1800 as presumably the text would be so tiny.
My question is, why does Apple call the 1440 x 900, "Best (Retina)"? What is best about it, why do only the other four have the scaled resolution warning since they all five are scaled are they not? Peformance concerns aside, can't I have confidence that all resolutions will be crisp as all are scaled as none are actually native (2880 x 1880)?
Then, Anand Tech has an article on how Apple handles this scaling, and they say,
"Retina MBP ships in a pixel doubled configuration. You get the effective desktop resolution of the standard 15-inch MacBook Pro's 1440 x 900 panel, but with four physical pixels driving every single pixel represented on the screen. This configuration is the best looking, . . ."
And they note the other resolutions have the potential to suffer performance and picture quality loss compared to the "Best" setting in the middle. But they just say this quality drop "can" happen, not that it "will" happen.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5996/how-the-retina-display-macbook-pro-handles-sc aling
Can someone explain why this middle setting is inherently "Best", is it because the native resolution is divisible by this setting (2880 divisible by 1440; and 1800 divisible by 900)? And why does Anand Tech say there might be a quality impact in the other four? When would quality be compromised, when wouldn't it?
Thanks!

GTCA wrote:
Can someone explain why this middle setting is inherently "Best", is it because the native resolution is divisible by this setting (2880 divisible by 1440; and 1800 divisible by 900)? And why does Anand Tech say there might be a quality impact in the other four? When would quality be compromised, when wouldn't it?
Thanks!
Basically the native resolution of the retina display is 2880x1800.
so if you're using 1440x900 then everything is perfect (which is why apple recommends it). Every pixel can be mapped to 2 pixels of the retina display, and everything is sharp.
for other resolutions,
Every single (clear) pixel, gets blurred with it's neighbors, or displaced and doubled, changing the size and shape of the displayed images.
Imagine two grids. One is 2x2 (4 pixels total). The other is 3x3.
Now if you scale up the 2x2 to the 3x3, you'd think you'd be ok, because the 3x3 is bigger, but what do you do with the middle pixel? Which corner's color does it get?
if you choose any of the 4 original pixels, you distort the image, so the only choice is a blurred mix of all 4 colors. It's a mess.
This is what happens when apple tries to display a 1920x1200 resolution desktop on a 2880x1800 resolution screen.
It *****.
As a photographer all I can say is...
no thanks.
I'm waiting for a 17" macbook pro with a decent native resolution, or it's time for another brand of computer.

Radeon 9600 Pro and Westinghouse 19" Widescreen Mon. 1440 X 900 Possible?

I have a G4 MDD with a Radeon 9600 Pro, 256 Mb card with dual DVI outs. I just got two Westinghouse 19' widescreen monitors which have a max res of 1440 X 900. Problem is when I try to set the res of the two monitors in the Displays pane, there is no selection for 1440 x 900. In fact all the settings appear to be 4:3 aspect ratios..... The card seems to have enough juice to drive both monitors as they look fairly decent at a res that is close to the 1440 x 900 but the image is obviously stretched. How do I get a 1440 x 900 selection in my Display pane in System Preferences? Please tell me this res can be driven by this card......
Thanks.
j....

Problem solved.....I used a little shareware program called SwitchResX:
http://www.madrau.com/html/SRX/About.html
Fabulous little problem solver. You can set up custom resolutions of just about any dimension, although I only tested my needed resolution, and magically once you restart the machine, the resolutions are available in the Display preferences pane. If the display doesn't look right at first, i.e. shifted to the left or right, keep playing with it and perhaps switch back to a different resolution and then back to your custom res and all should be well. 75 Mhz as a refresh rate seemed to make my video card and the monitor happiest.
Cheers.

1440 x 900 resolution on X200

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for