JimD wrote:
OK, I switched to 1280x960 and noticed something weird. Here is the
xdpyinfo for both resolutions.
1280x1024:
screen #0:
print screen: no
dimensions: 1280x1024 pixels (339x271 millimeters)
resolution: 96x96 dots per inch
depths (7): 24, 1, 4, 8, 15, 16, 32
1280x960:
screen #0:
print screen: no
dimensions: 1280x960 pixels (339x271 millimeters)
resolution: 96x90 dots per inch
depths (7): 24, 1, 4, 8, 15, 16, 32
Why is the dpi hosed when it is at 1280x960?
The dpi is calculated from the size that the monitor reports
(339mmx271mm) and the number of dots across and down. It appears that at
1280x1024 the monitor is reporting square pixels, and at 1280x960 it
reports "tall" pixels.
If the "339x271 millimeters" is correct, that means that the display is
a little taller than the standard 4:3 ratio (which would give 339x254) -
perhaps 1280x1024 *is* the correct resolution for this monitor. I'd
measure the physical dimensions of the monitor and if the ratio is 5:4
instead of 4:3, use the 1280x1024 resolution. I did some research and it
appears that this is the case for at least some LCD 1280x1024 monitors
(for example the ViewSonic 17" has a viewable area of 13.3" (horizontal)
X 10.6" (vertical); 17.0" diagonal which works out to 4:5 - the
ViewSonic 19" monitors also have a 5:4 ratio.)
So it's probably best to run at the native resolution.
--
Manuel A. McLure KE6TAW <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.mclure.org>
...for in Ulthar, according to an ancient and significant law,
no man may kill a cat. -- H.P. Lovecraft
--
gentoo-user@gentoo.org mailing list
