Hmmm.  Well, I suppose so.  What's wrong with the current selection of
resolutions?  I have: 320x240, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1280x1024,
1600x1200.  Are there others that I missed?

- Steve

David Fontaine wrote:

> > Yea, I thought of that, but that would allow people to render rediculuously
> > large pictures that my machines may net be able to support (memory
>
> There must be some way to impose restrictions on it, isn't there?
>
> --
> Homepage: http://www.faricy.net/~davidf/
> ___     ______________________________
>  | \     |_       <dav### [at] faricynet>
>  |_/avid |ontaine      <ICQ 55354965>

Post a reply to this message