On Monday 27 December 2004 14:36, Greg Folkert wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 20:21 +, Dave Ewart wrote:
> > On Monday, 27.12.2004 at 14:09 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 13:55 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> > > > Daniel B. wrote:
> > >
> > > --snip--
> > >
> > > > > You y
On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 20:21 +, Dave Ewart wrote:
> On Monday, 27.12.2004 at 14:09 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 13:55 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> > > Daniel B. wrote:
> > --snip--
> > > > You young whippersnappers are using modeline _generators_? Back
> > > > in the
On Monday, 27.12.2004 at 14:09 -0600, Alex Malinovich wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 13:55 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> > Daniel B. wrote:
> --snip--
> > > You young whippersnappers are using modeline _generators_? Back
> > > in the good old days I calculated modeline values by hand.
> > >
> > You h
On Mon, 2004-12-27 at 13:55 -0600, Kent West wrote:
> Daniel B. wrote:
--snip--
> > You young whippersnappers are using modeline _generators_?
> > Back in the good old days I calculated modeline values by hand.
> >
> You had hands?! Luxury! We had to do it in our heads. And we enjoyed it!
And I su
Daniel B. wrote:
Rogério Brito wrote:
...
For that very reason I'm using 1280x960 at 86Hz of refresh rate for
quite
some time (thanks to the Colas Modeline Generator [*] for generating
good
modelines for that).
[*] http://koala.ilog.fr/cgi-bin/nph-colas-modelines
You young whippersnappers are
Rogério Brito wrote:
...
For that very reason I'm using 1280x960 at 86Hz of refresh rate for quite
some time (thanks to the Colas Modeline Generator [*] for generating good
modelines for that).
[*] http://koala.ilog.fr/cgi-bin/nph-colas-modelines
You young whippersnappers are using modeline _gener
On 10-12-2004 23:26,Steve Block wrote:
[]
>
> As far as to the 1280x1024 question, I don't know. What I do know is
> that when I run my 19" Trinitron on 1280x1024 everything looks great,
> and when I run it at 1280x960 things look strange. Maybe I just got used
> to the aspect over time.
>
Dave h
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 03:57:33PM +0100, Shot (Piotr Szotkowski) wrote:
> Ron Johnson:
>
> > There will *only* be issues is a 4:3 image is stretched
> > to 5:4. Then, the image will look long/thin.
>
> No, if you set a 5:4 LCD (a popular setup) to a full-screen 1024x960
> or any other 4:3 resolu
Hello.
Ron Johnson:
> A 400x400 window at resolution 1280x1024 is the exact same size as if
> the monitor were running at 1280x960, because the monitor (whether LCT
> or CRT) is designed to run at 1280x1024, and X knows about 1280x1024.
The only monitors that are 'designed' to run at certain res
On Dec 10 2004, Dave Ewart wrote:
> Apart from anything else, 1280x960 should work faster than 1280x1024:
> less to redraw for each screen refresh!
For that very reason I'm using 1280x960 at 86Hz of refresh rate for quite
some time (thanks to the Colas Modeline Generator [*] for generating good
mo
Jon Dowland wrote:
I just did some measuring in my office:
My 17" TFT has a width of 13 1/4 inch, height 10 3/4
My co-worker's 17" (viewable) CRT (so I guess thats a 19" CRT) has
width 14 1/3, height 10 2/3
LCD displays these days are often running far stranger resolutions than
1280x1024. If the
Steve Block wrote:
As far as to the 1280x1024 question, I don't know. What I do know is
that when I run my 19" Trinitron on 1280x1024 everything looks great,
and when I run it at 1280x960 things look strange. Maybe I just got used
to the aspect over time.
Because of this discussion I decided
On 10 Dec 2004, Dave Ewart wrote:
> On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 12:13 +0200, Alejandro Matos wrote:
>
> > Well, if I use 1280x960 I see the pictures 'squashed' when I go back
> > to 1280x1024 it's ok :-\
>
> Hmmm, OK. You got a TFT with native resolution 1280x1024, then?
>
> Dave.
> --
Just trie
On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 11:18 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> I just did some measuring in my office:
>
> My 17" TFT has a width of 13 1/4 inch, height 10 3/4
> My co-worker's 17" (viewable) CRT (so I guess thats a 19" CRT) has
> width 14 1/3, height 10 2/3
OK, so we have:
17" TFT: 13.25 x 10.75
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 11:05 +, Dave Ewart wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Found a little comment about this matter here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard
>
> "Super XGA, a de facto standard with a resolution of 1280 × 1024
> with 32
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 11:05:14 +, Dave Ewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Found a little comment about this matter here:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard
>
> "Super XGA, a de facto standard with a resolution of 1280
No, i have an old monitor (maybe not "so" old...)
Saludos
--
Alejandro Matos
Helsinki - Finland
On Fri, 10 Dec 2004 10:33:10 +, Dave Ewart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 12:13 +0200, Alejandro Matos wrote:
>
> > Well
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Found a little comment about this matter here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard
"Super XGA, a de facto standard with a resolution of 1280 Ã 1024
with 32 bit pixels, true colour. This is an unusual resolution
because t
On Fri, 2004-12-10 at 09:24 +, Dave Ewart wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 09:42 +0100, Michal R. Hoffmann wrote:
>
> > > gdm: 800x600
> > > user1: 800x600
> > > user2: 1280x1024, virt 1024x768
> > > user3: 1024x768
>
> Tangential comment,
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 12:13 +0200, Alejandro Matos wrote:
> Well, if I use 1280x960 I see the pictures 'squashed' when I go back
> to 1280x1024 it's ok :-\
Hmmm, OK. You got a TFT with native resolution 1280x1024, then?
Dave.
- --
Dave Ewart -
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 09:57 +, Jon Dowland wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 09:43:30AM +, Dave Howorth wrote:
> > Dave Ewart wrote:
> > >I never understand why people want 1280x1024. This is a different
> > >aspect ratio to all the other r
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 09:43 +, Dave Howorth wrote:
> >I never understand why people want 1280x1024. This is a different
> >aspect ratio to all the other resolutions listed.
>
> Because that's what size our TFT monitors are?
That's certainly
If you use that resolution on a conventional monitor, your images and
icons will be 'squashed': particularly, look at some photos of faces,
and you'll see it's not right.
**
Well, if I use 1280x960 I see the pictures 'squashed' when I go back
to 1280x1024 it's ok :-\
Saludos
--
On 10-12-2004 10:24,Dave Ewart wrote:
[cut]
> If you use that resolution on a conventional monitor, your images and
> icons will be 'squashed': particularly, look at some photos of
> faces, and you'll see it's not right.
>
> The correct resoltion for 1280x is 1280x960.
>
> I'm not just picking
On Fri, Dec 10, 2004 at 09:43:30AM +, Dave Howorth wrote:
> Dave Ewart wrote:
> >I never understand why people want 1280x1024. This is a different
> >aspect ratio to all the other resolutions listed.
>
> Because that's what size our TFT monitors are?
Precicely. I don't really see what the pr
Dave Ewart wrote:
I never understand why people want 1280x1024. This is a different
aspect ratio to all the other resolutions listed.
Because that's what size our TFT monitors are?
Cheers, Dave
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Friday, 10.12.2004 at 09:42 +0100, Michal R. Hoffmann wrote:
> > gdm: 800x600
> > user1: 800x600
> > user2: 1280x1024, virt 1024x768
> > user3: 1024x768
Tangential comment, I know, but ...
I never understand why people want 1280x1024. This is a
On 07-12-2004 17:01,Michal R. Hoffmann wrote:
> Is any possibility to set gdm login screen resolution 800x600 allowing
> users to set higher resolutions?
>
> For example:
> gdm: 800x600
> user1: 800x600
> user2: 1280x1024, virt 1024x768
> user3: 1024x768
>
> When I set in XF86Config-4 mode 800x6
28 matches
Mail list logo
