Aspire One D255E + External Monitor

[MikeB_2011]

Hello,

I have an Aspire One D255E with Win 7 Starter , that I am hooking to an external monitor, Samsung Syncmaster 2343. The optimal resolution for the latter is 2048 x 1152. I cannot seem to get the Aspire One to output such a resolution. The best I get is 1600 x 1050. I had an older Aspire One that had no problem with 2048x1152. Any ideas how I can achieve that resolution with the new Aspire? Would the Win7 version be the problem?

 

[WR2]

Hello MikeB_2011;

Check the specs on your Intel GMA 3150 IGP. I suspect it won't support 2048 x 1152 resolution.
The Acer Aspire One series has had a wide range of hardware / hardware specs and it seems your current model.

Microsoft Answers: Windows 7 Starter- what are the limitations?

 

[MikeB_2011]

It's definitely not the hardware.

I just installed Ubuntu 11.04 and it automatically detected the Samsung correctly and defaulted to the external monitor's 2048x1152 optimal setting.

I conclude this is another limitation of Win 7 Starter ... one of a few now that are very irritating.

 

[MikeB_2011]

BTW sorry about not posting this in the Acer forum. Wasn't paying attention.

 

[WR2]

From Intel's own Atom Datasheet:

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
source: http/www.intel.com/content/dam/doc/datasheet/atom-n400-vol-1-datasheet-.pdf

 

[WR2]

The best I get is 1600 x 1050.

Maybe that was 1400x1050?

 

[MikeB_2011]

Actually, it is 1680 x 1050 @ 60 Hz. That's the best I can get using Win 7 Starter.
With Ubuntu 11.04 resolution is 2048 x 1152 @ 60 Hz. I'll try and post a screen shot.

 

[MikeB_2011]

Here it is:

 

[WR2]

Show us a comparison of the actual screen - not the setting.
Im wondering how much the ICON size is changing on the display.
Despite what Windows and Ubuntu is reporting I'm wondering how you get the IGP to exceed what Intel reports as it's maximum output.

I can't see Intel making that kind of error - getting the max resolution wrong.

 

[MikeB_2011]

I've never had a misreported resolution and you are suggesting that both Win and Ubuntu are getting it wrong. I find it easier to believe that Intel is misreporting or, more likely, hasn't updated their info. In any case, okay but I have a few other things to get to first.

BTW I'm not an Ubuntu fan boy, quite the contrary (esp. with Narwhal), but I've got work to get done, so 'any port in a storm'.