Thanks again. Much appreciated.
The video card in the X41 (Intel 82915 chipset / GMA 900) can definitely do "all kinds of resolutions", as witnessed for example by this post in which the author is using the X41's video card to drive simultaneously a 1400×1050 internal laptop panel + a Dell 2405FPW 24" at 1920×1200:
http://rdo.homelinux.org/ubuntu-linux-o ... tude-d610/
Unfortunately, it's on a Dell D610, under Linux. So, the culprit is the video driver/bios, both of which in our case our "owned" by IBM.
The root of the problem seems to be that Intel (unlike ATI/Nvidia) does not provide support for user-defined custom resolutions. Instead, in principle, the video card driver asks the video bios for a list of supported resolutions and takes it from there. As far as I understand, that's pretty much the only thing the video bios does nowadays, i.e., serve as a repository for the video card specs.
In order to support custom resolutions, the Linux guys (per the posting above) do the following. As soon as the video bios get shadowed in RAM (for faster access), they go and modify it so that it reports the resolutions that they want to get out of the video card. Then they fireup the video driver which obliges and provides the desired resolutions.
I am sufficiently desparate (I love both the X41 and the Dell 24" monitor) that I installed Linux to see what resolutions are reported by our video bios by default. As far as I could see, 1600x1200 was there, 1920x1440 was there, but no 1920x1200. Moreover, interestingly, I did NOT see your resolution, i.e., 2048x1536.
This leads me to believe that the IBM-provided video driver for XP actually disregards the video bios and simply supports whatever resolutions IBM has chosen. This is further supported by my little tryout of the powerstrip utility from which I only got: ..., 1600x1200, 2048x1536. That is, no 1920x1440 which is in the video bios.
So, there we are: our hardware can do it and 16:9 monitors are becoming increasingly popular. Yet our video driver "can't be bothered".
I can understand IBM's need to "draw the line" somewhere in terms of what resolutions they support. But the marginal effort per supported resolution is so small and the X41s price so high ($2500 in my case) that asking IBM to support the "top 10" external monitor resolutions seems only fair.
No?
Thanks again,
dimitris